Write Simply(paulgraham.com)
paulgraham.com
Write Simply
http://paulgraham.com/simply.html
353 コメント
Copywriter here. Sometimes the client gives me the barest thread of a topic, some minor, new product or service or partnership for them, something that could be covered comprehensively in 300 words... and then they say they want a 1000+ word blog post on it (for SEO purposes).
That article is going to end up being mostly fluff, and there’s not much I can do about it. Sure, I can work in some background and play up the implications of the news, but really, it’s just content for content’s sake, so that they can stay in their customers’ feeds.
And, just for the record, those type of articles are not my forte or preference, but are an unavoidable reality in my line of work.
That article is going to end up being mostly fluff, and there’s not much I can do about it. Sure, I can work in some background and play up the implications of the news, but really, it’s just content for content’s sake, so that they can stay in their customers’ feeds.
And, just for the record, those type of articles are not my forte or preference, but are an unavoidable reality in my line of work.
Sounds like your clients might benefit from reading this essay :P
The text is being optimized for an algorithmic reader, not a human reader. For this essay to make any difference to OP, Google's search engineers would have to read it.
On Writing Well[0] is one of the best books I've read. I'd recommended it to anyone who wants to improve their writing.
0: https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/53343.On_Writing_Well
0: https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/53343.On_Writing_Well
The first review on that page[1] is a well argued counterpoint to Graham's essay. Getting your ideas understood is often only one part of what you're trying to achieve.
If that really is your only goal, then I agree, the simpler the better.
[1] https://www.goodreads.com/review/show/755379555?book_show_ac...
If that really is your only goal, then I agree, the simpler the better.
[1] https://www.goodreads.com/review/show/755379555?book_show_ac...
Having read a fair amount of Zizek and some Foucault I have to agree. Obfuscation can be just as useful as clarity.
Can you explain that? As an engineer I think generally anything that can be done more simply is nearly always better.
I agree with you personally. But find that not everyone wants to communicate clearly. Some people have made a career out of impenetrable communication.
Not the parent poster, but: think of speed bumps. They force you to slow down and pay more attention to the road.
Some writers, particularly post-modern ones, aim at the same thing. By forcing you to read their works carefully, you'll (in theory) be forced to think about them more.
Some writers, particularly post-modern ones, aim at the same thing. By forcing you to read their works carefully, you'll (in theory) be forced to think about them more.
That feels like the author is saying “I’m so clever you need to be told when to think about this,” whereas i would prefer to think at my own pace, without deliberate obfuscation, thanks very much.
If it’s a work of art, fair enough. If you’re trying to explain or argue something... then you’re probably hiding the holes in your argument or trying to sound smarter than you are.
If it’s a work of art, fair enough. If you’re trying to explain or argue something... then you’re probably hiding the holes in your argument or trying to sound smarter than you are.
...it’s not my reasoning. I’m explaining why some postmodern writers say they have that style. Personally I think it can be hit or miss.
I see, thanks for sharing. Just makes them sound pompous.
I don’t think this essay precludes that either, the 1% of 1% of books that are made better by being Proust rather than Vonnegut. And the chances of you being Proust are essentially zero.
If anything, it’s useful that language can sometimes slow you down. It’s one of the things language is able to do. Not everything benefits from sliding in as slickly as possible, letting you use your “mental models” to quickly grasp an idea you don’t already have.
I’m not fond of Foucault, but from time to time I explain to my pragmatic wife what Deleuze or Zizek are all about in $book, and as best as I try to explain them in plain words, much of what I got doesn’t come across. Tradutore traditore.
I’m not fond of Foucault, but from time to time I explain to my pragmatic wife what Deleuze or Zizek are all about in $book, and as best as I try to explain them in plain words, much of what I got doesn’t come across. Tradutore traditore.
Although you should probably take into consideration that some professional linguists think the book is trash containing "prescriptivist poppycock" that the author doesn't even follow.
https://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=18345
Also a tiny study on whether adj/adv usage correlates with good/bad writing: https://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=18398
https://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=18345
Also a tiny study on whether adj/adv usage correlates with good/bad writing: https://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=18398
A lot of writing rules are of the "follow it until you know how and when to break it" variety. That way if you never learn how to break them correctly, your writing is still a lot better than it was. It's no surprise that studies of writing already known to be good will find much rule-breaking, as one is not surprised to find race cars on a race track moving faster than we'd want any car to, ordinarily.
> A lot of writing rules are of the "follow it until you know how and when to break it" variety.
Prescriptivists never seem to add that clarifying nuance to their advice though.
> That way if you never learn how to break them correctly, your writing is still a lot better than it was.
That assumes their advice is good in the first place - when professional linguists call it trash, I'd have to wonder if it is.
Prescriptivists never seem to add that clarifying nuance to their advice though.
> That way if you never learn how to break them correctly, your writing is still a lot better than it was.
That assumes their advice is good in the first place - when professional linguists call it trash, I'd have to wonder if it is.
> Prescriptivists never seem to add that clarifying nuance to their advice though.
They often do, in my experience. AFAIK it hasn't been common to attempt any kind of real, strict prescriptivism in English since the middle of last century (yes, I'm sure a few examples exist). These days it's mostly "write like this—until you know better" or "avoid X if your audience is Y, for such-and-such reason".
They often do, in my experience. AFAIK it hasn't been common to attempt any kind of real, strict prescriptivism in English since the middle of last century (yes, I'm sure a few examples exist). These days it's mostly "write like this—until you know better" or "avoid X if your audience is Y, for such-and-such reason".
I agree. It is an excellent book that will teach you to use fewer and simpler words. I think it makes a lot of sense in technical and business writing.
Aside from knowing this though the most effective thing I've learned to do is to keep re-reading what I wrote. Reorganize phrases to keep connected thoughts nearby in text. In English you have a lot of freedom to put phrases all over the place in a sentence. When I write I very rarely put all the connected phrases next to each other in the first pass.
But I guess I'd generalize that to say: taking the time to re-read what you wrote and edit it actually makes a big difference. It took a lot of shitty writing and overcoming laziness in school before I learned this lesson.
Aside from knowing this though the most effective thing I've learned to do is to keep re-reading what I wrote. Reorganize phrases to keep connected thoughts nearby in text. In English you have a lot of freedom to put phrases all over the place in a sentence. When I write I very rarely put all the connected phrases next to each other in the first pass.
But I guess I'd generalize that to say: taking the time to re-read what you wrote and edit it actually makes a big difference. It took a lot of shitty writing and overcoming laziness in school before I learned this lesson.
Also highly recommend Writing Tools:
https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/51750.Writing_Tools
https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/51750.Writing_Tools
[deleted]
> The other reason my writing ends up being simple is the way I do it. I write the first draft fast, then spend days editing it, trying to get everything just right. Much of this editing is cutting, and that makes simple writing even simpler.
ruthless editing seems a pretty big factor in the writing well result.
ruthless editing seems a pretty big factor in the writing well result.
Achieving simplicity is hard. Allow me to explain, with a software analogy, too many times "customers" or users wants a "simple" solution, wrongly expecting that a simple final product was made with a simple implementation, which is not the case at all. It's the opposite.
I would expect the same process about writing, a final and concise essay requires tons of work, removing a word and replacing it with a common alternative and rewording phrases to make it simpler (for the reader). I understand Paul statement as "use a limited and common vocabulary" rather than complex words and sentences with fluff.
"If I had more time, I would have written a shorter letter." -- Blaise Pascal
https://quoteinvestigator.com/2012/04/28/shorter-letter/
https://quoteinvestigator.com/2012/04/28/shorter-letter/
Wow. Love this. Also, it seems like it could apply to software development, as in... "If I had more time, I would have written less code."
"The greatest elegance is simplicity" - somebody
“Easy reading is damn hard writing.“ — Nathaniel Hawthorne (apparently)*
There’s definite value to simplicity in writing. At the same time, like all principles, people tend to run with the idea and misapply it. There are some cases in which your work demands a certain level of precision that’s only possible using complex words or jargon. Not to mention, writing that’s a little complicated can be a lot more fun! There are several novelists, essayists, and poets who are a joy to read not because they express their ideas as clearly and simply as possible, but because they manage linguistic acrobatics that make us realize there are ways to use language we never thought possible—often it takes some extra work to understand such output.
*: Have never taken the time to verify this myself.
There’s definite value to simplicity in writing. At the same time, like all principles, people tend to run with the idea and misapply it. There are some cases in which your work demands a certain level of precision that’s only possible using complex words or jargon. Not to mention, writing that’s a little complicated can be a lot more fun! There are several novelists, essayists, and poets who are a joy to read not because they express their ideas as clearly and simply as possible, but because they manage linguistic acrobatics that make us realize there are ways to use language we never thought possible—often it takes some extra work to understand such output.
*: Have never taken the time to verify this myself.
The quote is apparently attributable to "Thomas Hood"[1]
[1]https://quoteinvestigator.com/2014/11/05/hard-writing/
[1]https://quoteinvestigator.com/2014/11/05/hard-writing/
I believe it. Hawthorne never wrote anything that was easy to read.
I believe the best piece of advice is, "Know your audience."
I believe this is a piece of the best advice:
1. Who is your audience?
2. What do you want to tell them?
3. What do you want them to do?
These are the Three Questions.
My advice: answer them before you create a powerpoint, an email, an essay, a policy. They create a sharp tool for thought.
These are the Three Questions.
My advice: answer them before you create a powerpoint, an email, an essay, a policy. They create a sharp tool for thought.
Yes. And for wanting to expand that audience simpler writing is an advantage IMO
> “Easy reading is damn hard writing.“
Reminds me of Mark Twain: "I didn't have time to write a short letter, so I wrote a long one."
Reminds me of Mark Twain: "I didn't have time to write a short letter, so I wrote a long one."
[deleted]
Reading that paragraph, 20-30 percent could be removed.
Reading for pleasure should be entertaining. Reading for knowledge should be simple/concise.
Reading for pleasure should be entertaining. Reading for knowledge should be simple/concise.
An, but there’s a fine line between simplification and reductionism.
For instance, your condensation of the graph completely misses the mention that people misapply general principles, and it also reduced linguistic creativity to “entertainment” which can mean a far different thing (e.g. one can write a book that’s wildly entertaining because of its characters but that sports none of the linguistic ingenuity I mention in the OP). Not to mention, you couldn’t even decide whether to use the word simple or concise! Sometimes you just can’t get around using a couple of “extra” words. Thus the abominable “/“. (Ick)
For instance, your condensation of the graph completely misses the mention that people misapply general principles, and it also reduced linguistic creativity to “entertainment” which can mean a far different thing (e.g. one can write a book that’s wildly entertaining because of its characters but that sports none of the linguistic ingenuity I mention in the OP). Not to mention, you couldn’t even decide whether to use the word simple or concise! Sometimes you just can’t get around using a couple of “extra” words. Thus the abominable “/“. (Ick)
> Reading for knowledge should be simple/concise
It can be a difficult balance. You can provide a lot of information in a few bullet points, but there may also be a lot of contextual information left out that leaves more curious readers wondering "why is like this and not another way".
It can be a difficult balance. You can provide a lot of information in a few bullet points, but there may also be a lot of contextual information left out that leaves more curious readers wondering "why is like this and not another way".
Writing should have goals and reach them.
There is plenty of writing not meant to entertain or convey knowledge.
There is plenty of writing not meant to entertain or convey knowledge.
The most successful (by that I mean, placed the greatest number of ideas in the greatest number of brains) informative writing I've seen is a pleasure to read as well. Humans are capable of deriving multiple rewards from something at the same time. People who fetishize simplicity would take Carl Sagan's:
Look again at that dot. That's here. That's home. That's us. On it everyone you love, everyone you know, everyone you ever heard of, every human being who ever was, lived out their lives. The aggregate of our joy and suffering, thousands of confident religions, ideologies, and economic doctrines, every hunter and forager, every hero and coward, every creator and destroyer of civilization, every king and peasant, every young couple in love, every mother and father, hopeful child, inventor and explorer, every teacher of morals, every corrupt politician, every "superstar," every "supreme leader," every saint and sinner in the history of our species lived there-on a mote of dust suspended in a sunbeam.
And replace it with:
The Earth contains all humans and is far from Voyager I.
Look again at that dot. That's here. That's home. That's us. On it everyone you love, everyone you know, everyone you ever heard of, every human being who ever was, lived out their lives. The aggregate of our joy and suffering, thousands of confident religions, ideologies, and economic doctrines, every hunter and forager, every hero and coward, every creator and destroyer of civilization, every king and peasant, every young couple in love, every mother and father, hopeful child, inventor and explorer, every teacher of morals, every corrupt politician, every "superstar," every "supreme leader," every saint and sinner in the history of our species lived there-on a mote of dust suspended in a sunbeam.
And replace it with:
The Earth contains all humans and is far from Voyager I.
[deleted]
I think we all know that we should write simply, but not always what needs to be simplified in something we've written. I find http://hemingwayapp.com to be useful here. I don't listen to all recommendations, but it helps me fix some mistakes I make often - using passive voice, unnecessary hedging etc.
As usual, xkcd is relevant: https://xkcd.com/547/
So is Calvin and Hobbes, kinda... https://www.gocomics.com/calvinandhobbes/1993/02/11
Following in on the original: https://www.gocomics.com/calvinandhobbes/1989/10/31
I remember seeing the replay of PG writing an essay[^1] back in 2009. To me, this was such a strong way to show (rather than tell) just _how_ hard writing really is.
[^1] Here's the current link if you're interested so watch: http://byronm.com/13sentences.html (Thankfully re-discovered from one of PGs recent tweets: https://twitter.com/paulg/status/1365425470318272514)
[^1] Here's the current link if you're interested so watch: http://byronm.com/13sentences.html (Thankfully re-discovered from one of PGs recent tweets: https://twitter.com/paulg/status/1365425470318272514)
I 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 versus your average academic research paper.
Both of these points considered, I disagree entirely with the premise. There can be value to dense, even perhaps enigmatic writing. I would say that the greatest works of English literature tend towards that direction (James Joyce, Thomas Pynchon, David Foster Wallace).
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 versus your average academic research paper.
Both of these points considered, I disagree entirely with the premise. There can be value to dense, even perhaps enigmatic writing. I would say that the greatest works of English literature tend towards that direction (James Joyce, Thomas Pynchon, David Foster Wallace).
>People on HN are already primed to appreciate this style of writing.
My perception is the reverse. Probably 60% of the articles linked on this site, day in and day out, are a thicket of impenetrable jargon. Endless blog posts that make no attempt to explain to the non-initiated what the various acronyms mean or why the concepts might matter for a person who is not deeply, deeply immersed in whatever technical field the author is writing about. I wish more people who write about coding/tech would realize that a larger audience is interested in what is going on, but that the communication of the concepts needs to be approachable. This is not just a shortcoming of this field, obviously, as people in all sorts of technical/specialized fields tend to write the same way, speaking only to the in-crowd.
My perception is the reverse. Probably 60% of the articles linked on this site, day in and day out, are a thicket of impenetrable jargon. Endless blog posts that make no attempt to explain to the non-initiated what the various acronyms mean or why the concepts might matter for a person who is not deeply, deeply immersed in whatever technical field the author is writing about. I wish more people who write about coding/tech would realize that a larger audience is interested in what is going on, but that the communication of the concepts needs to be approachable. This is not just a shortcoming of this field, obviously, as people in all sorts of technical/specialized fields tend to write the same way, speaking only to the in-crowd.
I think jargonistic writing is typical when trying to impress. Academics have long employed jargon to obfuscate in order to seem more clever and subtle. Expressed simply, ideas seem simple. Among folk who depend on appearing clever, the last thing they want is to appear simple.
Insightful ideas are rare. Hiding mundane thoughts in abstruse verbiage leaves questions in the mind of the readership: "I don't see the author's point. But he seems pretty smart. I must have missed something." Vote up.
Many well established schools of untestable academic thought are often built on foundations as sandy as these, IMHO.
Insightful ideas are rare. Hiding mundane thoughts in abstruse verbiage leaves questions in the mind of the readership: "I don't see the author's point. But he seems pretty smart. I must have missed something." Vote up.
Many well established schools of untestable academic thought are often built on foundations as sandy as these, IMHO.
Ah the old nerd trick of disregarding the context of a statement and applying it to a context where it clearly doesn't work.
Do you really think Paul Graham is arguing against James Joyce style writing? Why would you think that?
Do you really think Paul Graham is arguing against James Joyce style writing? Why would you think that?
Because James Joyce's style isn't "simple" by any stretch of the imagination, I would guess? And the essay presents its position as a general statement void of all context. What context are we supposed to assume here?
> And the essay presents its position as a general statement void of all context.
Are you sure? From the blog (first sentence):
> I try to write using ordinary words and simple sentences.
Since the "I" in this case refers to someone who does not write poetry, speculative fiction, drama, tragedies, comedies ... and only ever writes for a technical audience, the context is clear: technical[1] audience not seeking poetry, fiction, drama, etc...
Further one he says:
> So you can't assume that writing about a difficult topic means you can safely use difficult words.
Once again, that indicates to me he is talking about writing something technical[2], not prose or poetry.
[1][2] "Technical" is not limited to IT and engineering; it's about anything that involves technique. Describing dance moves is "technical", as is writing a recipe (which is very similar in technique to writing a tiny program) or anything involving writing down music (Should you use 7/4 for the first verse, or alternate between 3/4 and 4/4? Which will be clearer to the flautist?)
Are you sure? From the blog (first sentence):
> I try to write using ordinary words and simple sentences.
Since the "I" in this case refers to someone who does not write poetry, speculative fiction, drama, tragedies, comedies ... and only ever writes for a technical audience, the context is clear: technical[1] audience not seeking poetry, fiction, drama, etc...
Further one he says:
> So you can't assume that writing about a difficult topic means you can safely use difficult words.
Once again, that indicates to me he is talking about writing something technical[2], not prose or poetry.
[1][2] "Technical" is not limited to IT and engineering; it's about anything that involves technique. Describing dance moves is "technical", as is writing a recipe (which is very similar in technique to writing a tiny program) or anything involving writing down music (Should you use 7/4 for the first verse, or alternate between 3/4 and 4/4? Which will be clearer to the flautist?)
The title of the essay is "Write Simply." Furthermore, the second sentence is more general than the first:
> That kind of writing is easier to read, and the easier something is to read, the more deeply readers will engage with it.
That is a general claim. I agree that it is often good advice, but there are caveats which Graham does not provide.
> That kind of writing is easier to read, and the easier something is to read, the more deeply readers will engage with it.
That is a general claim. I agree that it is often good advice, but there are caveats which Graham does not provide.
I don't think Paul Graham writes for a "technical" audience only and am fairly certain he would dispute that claim.
I'm also fairly certain that the type of writing he's talking about is mostly non-fiction prose, such as the essays he writes himself (even though he doesn't state that explicitly). Would you consider those "technical" writing?
I'm also fairly certain that the type of writing he's talking about is mostly non-fiction prose, such as the essays he writes himself (even though he doesn't state that explicitly). Would you consider those "technical" writing?
What is an 'ordinary' word? The first sentence threw me for this precise term, which was internally inconsistent with later in the article talking about second or third+ English language users, or even, not mentioned in the article, first language speakers with differing backgrounds.
A very odd term to use.
I'd open simply with "Think of your audience, think of your goal" and on thinking of audience expand to "Think of your audience, of which there may be some you've not thought of, or it might just be yourself, and think of your goal, if any."
A very odd term to use.
I'd open simply with "Think of your audience, think of your goal" and on thinking of audience expand to "Think of your audience, of which there may be some you've not thought of, or it might just be yourself, and think of your goal, if any."
Everything has context. Paul Graham is a leader in the startup scene so more than likely he's talking about the types text relevant to startups. Blog posts, press releases, etc.
Again, why the fuck would you assume Paul Graham is talking about James Joyce?
Again, why the fuck would you assume Paul Graham is talking about James Joyce?
> Again, why the fuck would you
Please drop swipes like that from your arguments here, and generally please don't escalate hostility even when someone is wrong or you feel they are. Your comment would be fine without that last sentence.
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
Edit: as for "Try to not be autistic for a second" - we ban accounts that do that. Please review the guidelines and take the intended spirit of the site more to heart, so we won't have to ban you.
Please drop swipes like that from your arguments here, and generally please don't escalate hostility even when someone is wrong or you feel they are. Your comment would be fine without that last sentence.
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
Edit: as for "Try to not be autistic for a second" - we ban accounts that do that. Please review the guidelines and take the intended spirit of the site more to heart, so we won't have to ban you.
I do not have much of an opinion on the underlying debate happening here^1, but I will disagree with this comment.
I do not believe that the article's prescription is confined to business writing.
> Paul Graham is a leader in the startup scene
That is true. But Graham is also a self-described essayist. He was writing long before he started Y Combinator, and his essays often discuss writing as a thing unto itself. For example, his "Nerds" essay mentions that one of his goals for life in high school was to write well^2.
Given that Graham is deeply interested in writing, and that the article doesn't explicitly confine itself to business writing, I think it's quite a stretch to assume that this essay is only talking about business writing.
> Again, why the fuck would you assume Paul Graham is talking about James Joyce?
This is a strawman (and also unnecessarily combative).
--
[^1]: Well, see my top-level comment. But that's not really relevant to this comment.
[^2]: "There was something else I wanted more: to be smart. Not simply to do well in school, though that counted for something, but to design beautiful rockets, or to write well, or to understand how to program computers. In general, to make great things." http://www.paulgraham.com/nerds.html
I do not believe that the article's prescription is confined to business writing.
> Paul Graham is a leader in the startup scene
That is true. But Graham is also a self-described essayist. He was writing long before he started Y Combinator, and his essays often discuss writing as a thing unto itself. For example, his "Nerds" essay mentions that one of his goals for life in high school was to write well^2.
Given that Graham is deeply interested in writing, and that the article doesn't explicitly confine itself to business writing, I think it's quite a stretch to assume that this essay is only talking about business writing.
> Again, why the fuck would you assume Paul Graham is talking about James Joyce?
This is a strawman (and also unnecessarily combative).
--
[^1]: Well, see my top-level comment. But that's not really relevant to this comment.
[^2]: "There was something else I wanted more: to be smart. Not simply to do well in school, though that counted for something, but to design beautiful rockets, or to write well, or to understand how to program computers. In general, to make great things." http://www.paulgraham.com/nerds.html
If "more than likely" he's talking about "the types of text relevant to startups" then surely that would be stated in an essay tooting the virtues of "simple." However, that doesn't appear to be the case.
It seems more like Paul Graham might be talking about the kind of writing he does himself. Like essays. However, even in such a case, his point is debatable. Which is what people are doing here — debating.
No one is assuming he's "talking about James Joyce." You must be confused. He's talking about a certain type of writing style and making contestable generalizations about it. People are illustrating the contestable points with examples.
It seems more like Paul Graham might be talking about the kind of writing he does himself. Like essays. However, even in such a case, his point is debatable. Which is what people are doing here — debating.
No one is assuming he's "talking about James Joyce." You must be confused. He's talking about a certain type of writing style and making contestable generalizations about it. People are illustrating the contestable points with examples.
I think the essay is clearly about _non-fiction_ writing. It's arguing about how best to communicate ideas (he uses the term 'ideas' several times).
Sure, fiction can be trying to communicate things, and sometimes even ideas, but to me it's pretty obvious that the essay isn't trying to give advice for fiction writing in general.
Sure, fiction can be trying to communicate things, and sometimes even ideas, but to me it's pretty obvious that the essay isn't trying to give advice for fiction writing in general.
It's pretty obvious to me too. That's not the point.
The essay makes a generic statement about the superiority of a particular, although loosely defined, writing style.
People debate the edge cases of that statement, showing its limits, and pointing to counter examples.
The result is that the content of the essay is reduced to a very banal statement of the type: "All other things being equal, prefer writing something simple rather than not simple." As an aesthetic preference, it's all well and good. As a persuasive argument, rather lacking. It "tries to prove too much."
The essay makes a generic statement about the superiority of a particular, although loosely defined, writing style.
People debate the edge cases of that statement, showing its limits, and pointing to counter examples.
The result is that the content of the essay is reduced to a very banal statement of the type: "All other things being equal, prefer writing something simple rather than not simple." As an aesthetic preference, it's all well and good. As a persuasive argument, rather lacking. It "tries to prove too much."
The other person (at the top of this sub-thread) did say "Both of these points considered, I disagree entirely with the premise. There can be value to dense, even perhaps enigmatic writing. I would say that the greatest works of English literature tend towards that direction (James Joyce, Thomas Pynchon, David Foster Wallace)." I would not consider these edge cases, because I don't think literature is relevant to the essay and its purposes.
If you want to restrict Graham's argument to non-fiction, I'll happily grant you that.
But let me give you a bit more context:
As a Frenchman, when I think "Essay", my mind almost automatically reaches for two authors: Montaigne and Pascal (e.g. in his Pensées).
"Simple" is probably the last qualifier I would use to describe their works. They're not simple. They're complex, rich, beautiful, copiously quoting from classical authors and yet often crystal clear. They have the same quality poetry has where replacing a word by another damages the precision of the message and images conveyed.
That is also true of non-fiction prose in longer form. I shudder to think what could become of Tocqueville's writing style, a peculiar mix of classical and romantic, if it were translated into "simple" language.
But let me give you a bit more context:
As a Frenchman, when I think "Essay", my mind almost automatically reaches for two authors: Montaigne and Pascal (e.g. in his Pensées).
"Simple" is probably the last qualifier I would use to describe their works. They're not simple. They're complex, rich, beautiful, copiously quoting from classical authors and yet often crystal clear. They have the same quality poetry has where replacing a word by another damages the precision of the message and images conveyed.
That is also true of non-fiction prose in longer form. I shudder to think what could become of Tocqueville's writing style, a peculiar mix of classical and romantic, if it were translated into "simple" language.
Well okay, who is he addressing? That’s pretty much the only question I had reading it. Surely it isn’t the modern blogger or clickbait ‘journalists’, since they know what they are doing and we know what they are doing.
It’s possible he simply said nothing.
It’s possible he simply said nothing.
It reads very much like it's a response to this not-even-particularly-upvoted comment on his last essay, https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26377185 "Why does he write like an SAT reading comprehension passage"
Kind of incredible.
Kind of incredible.
serverholic(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 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.
> 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.
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.
Agreed. Simple writing is perfectly valid in the right time and place. Rich, dense writing also has a place and value. The real answer is understand what type of writing serves your intent and write with deliberate intent towards that style for that impact.
Exactly.
> I think there are two sources of confirmation bias here:
[...]
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 versus your average academic research paper.
Did you see what he wrote in the essay, regarding this:
> Simple writing also lasts better. People reading your stuff in the future will be in much the same position as people from other countries reading it today. The culture and the language will have changed. It's not vain to care about that, any more than it's vain for a woodworker to build a chair to last.
Indeed, lasting is not merely an accidental quality of chairs, or writing. It's a sign you did a good job.
> I disagree entirely with the premise. There can be value to dense, even perhaps enigmatic writing. I would say that the greatest works of English literature tend towards that direction (James Joyce, Thomas Pynchon, David Foster Wallace).
It seems pretty clear to me that the essay is about non-fiction writing, not fiction. All the arguments in it apply to non-fiction writing.
[...]
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 versus your average academic research paper.
Did you see what he wrote in the essay, regarding this:
> Simple writing also lasts better. People reading your stuff in the future will be in much the same position as people from other countries reading it today. The culture and the language will have changed. It's not vain to care about that, any more than it's vain for a woodworker to build a chair to last.
Indeed, lasting is not merely an accidental quality of chairs, or writing. It's a sign you did a good job.
> I disagree entirely with the premise. There can be value to dense, even perhaps enigmatic writing. I would say that the greatest works of English literature tend towards that direction (James Joyce, Thomas Pynchon, David Foster Wallace).
It seems pretty clear to me that the essay is about non-fiction writing, not fiction. All the arguments in it apply to non-fiction writing.
I also will defend PG point.
Most of us are not creating greatest works of English literature and me or many others are not James Joyce neither David Foster Wallace.
If you are writing some greatest work of literature please use all the tools that language gives you.
But for clear communication use simple language, please.
Most of us are not creating greatest works of English literature and me or many others are not James Joyce neither David Foster Wallace.
If you are writing some greatest work of literature please use all the tools that language gives you.
But for clear communication use simple language, please.
He didn't say it, but I'm pretty sure Graham is talking only about writing non-fiction essays, especially posts in social media. Writing with verve and elan requires variety and timing and imagination, not just clarity and simplicity. Other genres of literature like poetry, fiction, haikus, plays, sonnets, and even longer forms of non-fiction... these are horses best depicted not by monotone but by a rich spectrum of color.
I think the point is that one should use a direct and clear style of writing where the objective is to convey a clear message. Examples include technical papers or journalism. Of course, literature is not included.
Direct and clear doesn't always mean simple.
That's the main shortcoming of this essay. It doesn't define what it means by "simple". "If you want to be clear, write clearly" is a bromide, not an essay.
That's the main shortcoming of this essay. It doesn't define what it means by "simple". "If you want to be clear, write clearly" is a bromide, not an essay.
The essay is titled "Write Simply". It's about why you should try to write simply, rather than being a how-to. I think that's reasonable. It may be very difficult to precisely define what "simple" means, and it may not be that necessary: it's just telling people why (he thinks) they should aim for simplicity. Most people can make a conscious choice about how simple or complex their writing is - and this essay is advice about which direction to go in.
Ok, so what makes James Joyce a good writer?
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.
> Fiction and poetry vs whatever type of writing blogging is.
Essayists, pamphleteers, and diarists (blogs), and aphorists (Twitter). Genres with centuries-long histories.
Essayists, pamphleteers, and diarists (blogs), and aphorists (Twitter). Genres with centuries-long histories.
How do you define "greatest"?
[deleted]
This feels closely related Plain Language [1]. An editor I worked with pointed me to this concept. We were writing documentation for a framework my company was building.
[1] https://www.plainlanguage.gov/guidelines/
[1] https://www.plainlanguage.gov/guidelines/
The UK government has similar guidelines for writing plain English. [1]
[1]: https://www.gov.uk/guidance/content-design/writing-for-gov-u...
[1]: https://www.gov.uk/guidance/content-design/writing-for-gov-u...
Convoluted prose is the natural language equivalent of spaghetti code.
My standard recommendation for writing advice is Joseph M. Williams' "Style: Ten Lessons In Clarity And Grace"[1].
Another good one is George Gopen's "The Sense of Structure". It's less inspirational than Clarity and Grace, but it shows more hands-on how to construct sentences and paragraphs.
[1] or "Lessons in Clarity and Grace" or "Toward Clarity and Grace" – they are all substantially the same book
Another good one is George Gopen's "The Sense of Structure". It's less inspirational than Clarity and Grace, but it shows more hands-on how to construct sentences and paragraphs.
[1] or "Lessons in Clarity and Grace" or "Toward Clarity and Grace" – they are all substantially the same book
Please forward this to the people that write the TOS for software and websites.
A related paper is the delightfully titled "Consequences of erudite vernacular utilized irrespective of necessity: problems with using long words needlessly"[0]. It won the 2006 Ig Nobel Prize in Literature but it could've won the Economy one just as well in my opinion.
[0] https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/acp.1178
[0] https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/acp.1178
I think simplicity is overrated and often an excuse for dullness.
Seems like this whole essay argues for clarity rather than simplicity — probably a better goal to aim for, too.
He opposes simple to "fancy", but the opposite of simple isn't just "fancy", that's, well, a simplification. The opposite of "simple" writing may be: "rich" writing, "complex" writing, none of which are particularly problematic for Graham's goal provided that they're paired with enough clarity.
That "simple" writing lasts longer is disproved by many works of literature that have made their way to us through history, most of which, by the standard of this essay, could be considered complex.
As someone with a modicum of experience in the philosophy of language, I must also say that I do not look kindly on people who take for granted that there even could be such a thing as a thought without language, a "pure idea", since for all we know such a thing has never been observed.
He opposes simple to "fancy", but the opposite of simple isn't just "fancy", that's, well, a simplification. The opposite of "simple" writing may be: "rich" writing, "complex" writing, none of which are particularly problematic for Graham's goal provided that they're paired with enough clarity.
That "simple" writing lasts longer is disproved by many works of literature that have made their way to us through history, most of which, by the standard of this essay, could be considered complex.
As someone with a modicum of experience in the philosophy of language, I must also say that I do not look kindly on people who take for granted that there even could be such a thing as a thought without language, a "pure idea", since for all we know such a thing has never been observed.
> That "simple" writing lasts longer is disproved by many works of literature that have made their way to us through history, most of which, by the standard of this essay, could be considered complex.
- Would that literature have been considered complex at the time it was written? How much of that perceived complexity is due to changing writing styles, education standards, etc?
- Writing a book and writing a proposal for the next project/product have entirely different definitions of "lasting". Context matters greatly.
> As someone with a modicum of experience in the philosophy of language, I must also say that I do not look kindly on people who take for granted that there even could be such a thing as a thought without language, a "pure idea", since for all we know such a thing has never been observed.
This sentence is a good example of the kind of unnecessary complexity described by the essay. You seem to be saying that "pure ideas are not possible without language", but that's not clear in your writing. If your intent it to exclude people who do not have a "modicum of experience in the philosophy of language", I have to ask: why?
- Would that literature have been considered complex at the time it was written? How much of that perceived complexity is due to changing writing styles, education standards, etc?
- Writing a book and writing a proposal for the next project/product have entirely different definitions of "lasting". Context matters greatly.
> As someone with a modicum of experience in the philosophy of language, I must also say that I do not look kindly on people who take for granted that there even could be such a thing as a thought without language, a "pure idea", since for all we know such a thing has never been observed.
This sentence is a good example of the kind of unnecessary complexity described by the essay. You seem to be saying that "pure ideas are not possible without language", but that's not clear in your writing. If your intent it to exclude people who do not have a "modicum of experience in the philosophy of language", I have to ask: why?
> - Would that literature have been considered complex at the time it was written? How much of that perceived complexity is due to changing writing styles, education standards, etc?
Great question, can't say I'm able to answer it authoritatively. I would guess most works of literature, essays and speeches, even at the time they were produced, tend to be a fair bit more complex than what the average person is used to. Especially if they come from eras with lower literacy.
> - Writing a book and writing a proposal for the next project/product have entirely different definitions of "lasting". Context matters greatly.
It certainly does.
> This sentence is a good example of the kind of unnecessary complexity described by the essay.
It's a pretty simple sentence. What's tripping you up?
> You seem to be saying that "pure ideas are not possible without language", but that's not clear in your writing.
No. I'm saying that thinking "pure ideas devoid of any language" is a naive concept to anyone who's researched that topic a minimal amount. I wasn't flexing.
> If your intent it to exclude people who do not have a "modicum of experience in the philosophy of language", I have to ask: why?
That's not my intent at all. I'm providing context to my judgment. If that was my intent, I would have said: "If you don't have experience in the philosophy of language, don't write about this topic." Good thing is — I'm not a Nazi, so I tend not to do that kind of stuff.
Great question, can't say I'm able to answer it authoritatively. I would guess most works of literature, essays and speeches, even at the time they were produced, tend to be a fair bit more complex than what the average person is used to. Especially if they come from eras with lower literacy.
> - Writing a book and writing a proposal for the next project/product have entirely different definitions of "lasting". Context matters greatly.
It certainly does.
> This sentence is a good example of the kind of unnecessary complexity described by the essay.
It's a pretty simple sentence. What's tripping you up?
> You seem to be saying that "pure ideas are not possible without language", but that's not clear in your writing.
No. I'm saying that thinking "pure ideas devoid of any language" is a naive concept to anyone who's researched that topic a minimal amount. I wasn't flexing.
> If your intent it to exclude people who do not have a "modicum of experience in the philosophy of language", I have to ask: why?
That's not my intent at all. I'm providing context to my judgment. If that was my intent, I would have said: "If you don't have experience in the philosophy of language, don't write about this topic." Good thing is — I'm not a Nazi, so I tend not to do that kind of stuff.
To check if a written sentence is truly simple, just ask yourself:
"How would it sound if somebody spoke it out loud?"
I've found that to be a very accurate way to check sentences for too much fluff.
Complex sentences just sound "off" when spoken.
"How would it sound if somebody spoke it out loud?"
I've found that to be a very accurate way to check sentences for too much fluff.
Complex sentences just sound "off" when spoken.
ymmv but the best advice i ever got in this area:
'write like you are speaking'
depending on my purpose and audience, i will write the first draft and then deliver it verbally. at least for me, and i do tend to use far too many words in the first draft, that exercise leads to a much clearer second draft.
'write like you are speaking'
depending on my purpose and audience, i will write the first draft and then deliver it verbally. at least for me, and i do tend to use far too many words in the first draft, that exercise leads to a much clearer second draft.
If this essay resonates with you, consider looking into plainenglish.co.uk.
Here's a place to start: http://www.plainenglish.co.uk/punctuating-sentences.html
Here's a place to start: http://www.plainenglish.co.uk/punctuating-sentences.html
[deleted]
Meh. 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 by his Grand Vizier, the top political advisor, who was also a poet and translator. Indeed it would almost be unheard of for a high governmental official to not be deeply educated in aesthetic matters.
In any case, what immediately struck me was how beautiful the writing itself was. A bit wordy, at times, but in no way simple. Just one line I wrote down from the introduction:
Without the help of Speech, the inner world's capital could not be built, nor this evil outer world's civilization be conceived.
When political leaders put together similar books today, they are inevitably written in the most simple, banal language possible in order to maximize "idea propagation" and book sales. History is all the worse for it.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Akbarnama
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 by his Grand Vizier, the top political advisor, who was also a poet and translator. Indeed it would almost be unheard of for a high governmental official to not be deeply educated in aesthetic matters.
In any case, what immediately struck me was how beautiful the writing itself was. A bit wordy, at times, but in no way simple. Just one line I wrote down from the introduction:
Without the help of Speech, the inner world's capital could not be built, nor this evil outer world's civilization be conceived.
When political leaders put together similar books today, they are inevitably written in the most simple, banal language possible in order to maximize "idea propagation" and book sales. History is all the worse for it.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Akbarnama
Another comment mentioned that using a word with multiple meanings increases confusion.
I would argue that "writing" can mean "writing the tool" as well as "writing the art form." PG is talking about "writing the tool."
Confusingly, both the tool and the art form can convey ideas.
Certain ideas can be conveyed better by art ("a picture is worth a thousand words"). Visual art is typically more accessible than complex prose, but all forms of art can reach levels of inaccessibility that are frustrating to those not "in the know."
I would argue that "writing" can mean "writing the tool" as well as "writing the art form." PG is talking about "writing the tool."
Confusingly, both the tool and the art form can convey ideas.
Certain ideas can be conveyed better by art ("a picture is worth a thousand words"). Visual art is typically more accessible than complex prose, but all forms of art can reach levels of inaccessibility that are frustrating to those not "in the know."
>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.
That's not the argument here. This talks about language and writing as a means of communicating ideas to as broad an audience as possible. There is still a place for dense, poetic, or ambiguous language full of jargon and metaphor and all that good stuff. For example, physicists will communicate amongst themselves in a very inaccessible language of physics because they need precise language in that setting. But a physicists who wants to communicate his ideas to the public, he will simplify it to to make it accessible.
That's not the argument here. This talks about language and writing as a means of communicating ideas to as broad an audience as possible. There is still a place for dense, poetic, or ambiguous language full of jargon and metaphor and all that good stuff. For example, physicists will communicate amongst themselves in a very inaccessible language of physics because they need precise language in that setting. But a physicists who wants to communicate his ideas to the public, he will simplify it to to make it accessible.
There's two things wrong with this. First taking as self-evident the notion that plain or simple language is necessarily more effective in communicating ideas to a broad audience. That's very questionable. Effective orators don't just communicate simply to 'move ideas around', they also inspire and connect emotionally with their audience, just think of any well-regarded and successful politician.
Secondly implicit in that argument is the notion that ordinary people can only comprehend 'simple speech' and have no appreciation for form or aesthetics, which is pretty arrogant but par for the course for your average PG essay and captures perfectly the stereotypical software developer developer mindset of completely lacking appreciation for style and thinking one's own ideas are so brilliant they have to be dumbed down for everyone else.
Secondly implicit in that argument is the notion that ordinary people can only comprehend 'simple speech' and have no appreciation for form or aesthetics, which is pretty arrogant but par for the course for your average PG essay and captures perfectly the stereotypical software developer developer mindset of completely lacking appreciation for style and thinking one's own ideas are so brilliant they have to be dumbed down for everyone else.
I don't think we're arguing the same thing.
Here's the context for my argument: believe it or not, there are people that will use language to impress or intimidate or to even mask their ignorance, even people who also purport to communicate ideas. Sometimes those people will also purposely use jargon with the aim to do both: direct their message to their in-group and purposely exclude individuals not from their in-group (I can list some examples of groups that do that, but I prefer not to go down that rabbit hole. I'm sure you can come up with some examples as well).
On the other hand, people who genuinely care about communicating ideas as broadly as possible will tailor their speech in such a way as to make it most accessible to as much of the audience as possible, because to them the idea is the important part not the medium. I leave it up to you to define 'accessible speech', but to pg it means communicating with simpler language - I think he makes a reasonable argument. Especially in context of a multicultural society with a sizable (recent) immigrant base and a global audience with various levels of English vocabulary knowledge.
It is also the hallmark of a good teacher when they can tailor the idea to a student who is smart enough to understand it but struggles with overcoming some kind of barrier (from vocabulary, to culture)
Here's the context for my argument: believe it or not, there are people that will use language to impress or intimidate or to even mask their ignorance, even people who also purport to communicate ideas. Sometimes those people will also purposely use jargon with the aim to do both: direct their message to their in-group and purposely exclude individuals not from their in-group (I can list some examples of groups that do that, but I prefer not to go down that rabbit hole. I'm sure you can come up with some examples as well).
On the other hand, people who genuinely care about communicating ideas as broadly as possible will tailor their speech in such a way as to make it most accessible to as much of the audience as possible, because to them the idea is the important part not the medium. I leave it up to you to define 'accessible speech', but to pg it means communicating with simpler language - I think he makes a reasonable argument. Especially in context of a multicultural society with a sizable (recent) immigrant base and a global audience with various levels of English vocabulary knowledge.
It is also the hallmark of a good teacher when they can tailor the idea to a student who is smart enough to understand it but struggles with overcoming some kind of barrier (from vocabulary, to culture)
I would bet inner world here in Beveridge's translation since God is being addressed is referring to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Batin_(Islam). I should find the new edition with Thackston's since I used to have his book on Persian as a kid.
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.
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.
The funny thing is that Akbar himself was actually illiterate. He had everything read to him.
Otherwise, sure, I agree. I'd just say that the beauty of democratization and widespread literacy is that we all have access to the high culture of the past.
Otherwise, sure, I agree. I'd just say that the beauty of democratization and widespread literacy is that we all have access to the high culture of the past.
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.
"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.
> Early and classic literature was meant solely for the elites, so it featured flamboyant writing styles
That actually isn't universally true. For example, most people today probably consider Shakespeare's writing style to be "flamboyant" yet his audience was a wide swath of the public. The difference today is that we are post-Moderns and so we have inherited the Modernist rejection of the Victorian era and its excessive tendencies.
Akbar was also a contemporary of Shakespeare, interestingly enough.
That actually isn't universally true. For example, most people today probably consider Shakespeare's writing style to be "flamboyant" yet his audience was a wide swath of the public. The difference today is that we are post-Moderns and so we have inherited the Modernist rejection of the Victorian era and its excessive tendencies.
Akbar was also a contemporary of Shakespeare, interestingly enough.
"[I]t focuses on efficiency and effectiveness of communicating the intended idea as unambiguously".
Is this true? Since the 20th century, there's been a marked subset of literature dedicated toward ambiguity, absurdism, and surrealism brought on by the idea of the subconscious, the theory of relativity, WWII.
In fact, most of these titles arguably don't even have an "intended idea" to impart. E.g. T.S. Eliot's "The Wasteland", Joyce's "Ulysses", Camus's "The Stranger" to name a couple off the top of my head.
"'Beauty and 'inspiration' are subjective...I find simple...language much more elegant than...'literary' styles of the past" Sure, in your subjective opinion you think older literature is not as pleasing to read, but these works objectively changed the use of the English language: that's why they are regarded as literature.
Canonical literature changed not only the way future authors wrote, but also how future generations behold and conceive existence. Both the ideas, and the way they are expressed are the source of many derivative bodies of text including your and my own comments.
Modern works that repackage these ideas, styles, and archetypes in a more diluted way to satisfy one's personal taste and level of reading comprehension does not qualify them to be more "literary" than the original works which created those artifacts. In this sense, the idea of literature and the value of those works is well defined. To reduce literature as merely "verbose" and to quote the word as if it is illegitimate and lacking consensus is highly ignorant and, given the lack of substantive evidence or original arguments supporting it, completely asinine.
Is this true? Since the 20th century, there's been a marked subset of literature dedicated toward ambiguity, absurdism, and surrealism brought on by the idea of the subconscious, the theory of relativity, WWII.
In fact, most of these titles arguably don't even have an "intended idea" to impart. E.g. T.S. Eliot's "The Wasteland", Joyce's "Ulysses", Camus's "The Stranger" to name a couple off the top of my head.
"'Beauty and 'inspiration' are subjective...I find simple...language much more elegant than...'literary' styles of the past" Sure, in your subjective opinion you think older literature is not as pleasing to read, but these works objectively changed the use of the English language: that's why they are regarded as literature.
Canonical literature changed not only the way future authors wrote, but also how future generations behold and conceive existence. Both the ideas, and the way they are expressed are the source of many derivative bodies of text including your and my own comments.
Modern works that repackage these ideas, styles, and archetypes in a more diluted way to satisfy one's personal taste and level of reading comprehension does not qualify them to be more "literary" than the original works which created those artifacts. In this sense, the idea of literature and the value of those works is well defined. To reduce literature as merely "verbose" and to quote the word as if it is illegitimate and lacking consensus is highly ignorant and, given the lack of substantive evidence or original arguments supporting it, completely asinine.
He’s being passive aggressive. Orwell had a particular problem with political speech when he gave his rules on writing simply and clearly.
Don’t speak clearly or concisely or with prose or with poetry, if you lack conviction. Who the fuck are you talking to, take your stand. The world is not your school.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politics_and_the_English_Lan...
But hey, if he meant ‘this ones for the kids’, make it clear by writing simply.
All forms of expression tread on fraud if you lack conviction, and you will have to hide in airy fortifications of [‘that’s not what I meant’, ‘I was misinterpreted’, ‘You only think I meant this’, ‘Your are the problem’].
Well I’m sorry, I was just trying to figure out what you simply meant to say.
Don’t speak clearly or concisely or with prose or with poetry, if you lack conviction. Who the fuck are you talking to, take your stand. The world is not your school.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politics_and_the_English_Lan...
But hey, if he meant ‘this ones for the kids’, make it clear by writing simply.
All forms of expression tread on fraud if you lack conviction, and you will have to hide in airy fortifications of [‘that’s not what I meant’, ‘I was misinterpreted’, ‘You only think I meant this’, ‘Your are the problem’].
Well I’m sorry, I was just trying to figure out what you simply meant to say.
There's a difference in writing, like there's a difference in painting. Painting a house is different from painting the Mona Lisa. Writing a work instruction or standard operating procedure is different from writing a poem and both are different from writing pop fiction or non-fiction. You can optimize for meaning, optimize for beauty, or you can optimize for inspiration, but it's hard to get all of them, and this is not a skill that is easy to get.
PG does not really explore that (natch), but that's a point to consider, nonetheless.
PG does not really explore that (natch), but that's a point to consider, nonetheless.
I took the objective of the essay to be "communicating ideas."
There is certainly no reason why one can't write well and communicate their ideas at the same time. In fact, I'd argue that well-written ideas spread more quickly. Things like The Bible or The Qur'an would likely be far less influential if they were poorly written.
There is certainly no reason why one can't write well and communicate their ideas at the same time. In fact, I'd argue that well-written ideas spread more quickly. Things like The Bible or The Qur'an would likely be far less influential if they were poorly written.
This is what PG states:
> It's too much to hope that writing could ever be pure ideas. You might not even want it to be. But for most writers, most of the time, that's the goal to aim for. The gap between most writing and pure ideas is not filled with poetry.
I think that's virtually meaningless unless you define what is meant by "an idea". The Bible, Qu'ran, the story of Gilgamesh, Homer's Illias,... are all ideas, just the same as famous essays by Hemingway or Benjamin Franklin. Even Proust's In Search of Lost Time with it's epic long sentences is a multitude of ideas regarding involuntary memory, separation anxiety and much more.
Everything PG writes after that hinges on a single imperative: That if you intend for your writing to be read, you must write simple.
The trouble is that his argument doesn't challenge that. There's no reflection on the fact that this is by far an universal principle, or that it, paradoxically, defines the relationship with the reader as if the latter always wants simple, digestible reading at every turn.
Hemingway is famous for his terse and simple writing, attributed to his schooling as a journalist. But he also had a critics who simply despised his literary writing for its terse and uncompromising style. And then there's William Faulkner who had this baroque style with long, endless sentences which dug their heels into Big Emotions, trying to convey them in the most sinuous way possible. Faulkner, just like Hemingway having won the Nobel Prize, found himself the butt of criticism on his writing as well.
Sure, these musings pertain to great literators. PG's point could be relegated to articles and essays instead. Or, unspoken yet more to the point, writing as this ephemeral, intangible idea that disolves and dissappear like vapor clouds the second it is published in the digital realm. Unlike words which are printed in respectable paper journals and glossy magazines.
No, the writing style of PG's essay was also part of this expose. Leveraged by the author to drive a point home. I'm still not sure what that point was exactly. PG being PG, chances are he just wanted nothing more then to make a so-called thought-provoking statement. In that regard, simple writing doesn't automatically make for good writing. The idea, the essence, you're trying to sell still needs to be solid and worth telling. That's where PG's essay, ironically, falls flat.
PG's essay doesn't spark a debate because he writes about an idea, it sparks discussion because of quite the opposite: writing about anything except about writing or why one writes. Now, one can fault PG for not providing context, but as with anything in this digital world, PG publishes on his own websites and assumes that the reader had written his other writings as well to understand what he's trying to get at. That's fine. It just doesn't make for compelling reading if one has to pieces together.
> It's too much to hope that writing could ever be pure ideas. You might not even want it to be. But for most writers, most of the time, that's the goal to aim for. The gap between most writing and pure ideas is not filled with poetry.
I think that's virtually meaningless unless you define what is meant by "an idea". The Bible, Qu'ran, the story of Gilgamesh, Homer's Illias,... are all ideas, just the same as famous essays by Hemingway or Benjamin Franklin. Even Proust's In Search of Lost Time with it's epic long sentences is a multitude of ideas regarding involuntary memory, separation anxiety and much more.
Everything PG writes after that hinges on a single imperative: That if you intend for your writing to be read, you must write simple.
The trouble is that his argument doesn't challenge that. There's no reflection on the fact that this is by far an universal principle, or that it, paradoxically, defines the relationship with the reader as if the latter always wants simple, digestible reading at every turn.
Hemingway is famous for his terse and simple writing, attributed to his schooling as a journalist. But he also had a critics who simply despised his literary writing for its terse and uncompromising style. And then there's William Faulkner who had this baroque style with long, endless sentences which dug their heels into Big Emotions, trying to convey them in the most sinuous way possible. Faulkner, just like Hemingway having won the Nobel Prize, found himself the butt of criticism on his writing as well.
Sure, these musings pertain to great literators. PG's point could be relegated to articles and essays instead. Or, unspoken yet more to the point, writing as this ephemeral, intangible idea that disolves and dissappear like vapor clouds the second it is published in the digital realm. Unlike words which are printed in respectable paper journals and glossy magazines.
No, the writing style of PG's essay was also part of this expose. Leveraged by the author to drive a point home. I'm still not sure what that point was exactly. PG being PG, chances are he just wanted nothing more then to make a so-called thought-provoking statement. In that regard, simple writing doesn't automatically make for good writing. The idea, the essence, you're trying to sell still needs to be solid and worth telling. That's where PG's essay, ironically, falls flat.
PG's essay doesn't spark a debate because he writes about an idea, it sparks discussion because of quite the opposite: writing about anything except about writing or why one writes. Now, one can fault PG for not providing context, but as with anything in this digital world, PG publishes on his own websites and assumes that the reader had written his other writings as well to understand what he's trying to get at. That's fine. It just doesn't make for compelling reading if one has to pieces together.
Most complicated writing of the kind PG is complaining about isn't beautiful, though. It's verbose and clumsy and full of less good replacements for common words, like "purchase" instead of "buy", "utilize" instead of "use" and so on. Or it has flowery phrases that add nothing. A recent example is Github's recent blog post about a security vulnerability they fixed [0]. Its opening paragraph:
"On the evening of March 8, we invalidated all authenticated sessions on GitHub.com created prior to 12:03 UTC on March 8 out of an abundance of caution to protect users from an extremely rare, but potentially serious, security vulnerability affecting a very small number of GitHub.com sessions."
"out of an abundance of caution" adds nothing other than the faint smell of a desperate attempt to reassure the reader. The sentence would read much better without it.
I'm all for rich language where it's useful or appropriate (a novel, etc) but in most cases I just want to know what's up.
[0] https://github.blog/2021-03-08-github-security-update-a-bug-...
"On the evening of March 8, we invalidated all authenticated sessions on GitHub.com created prior to 12:03 UTC on March 8 out of an abundance of caution to protect users from an extremely rare, but potentially serious, security vulnerability affecting a very small number of GitHub.com sessions."
"out of an abundance of caution" adds nothing other than the faint smell of a desperate attempt to reassure the reader. The sentence would read much better without it.
I'm all for rich language where it's useful or appropriate (a novel, etc) but in most cases I just want to know what's up.
[0] https://github.blog/2021-03-08-github-security-update-a-bug-...
I think it does add information. “Out of an abundance of caution” is a stock phrase that means “we don’t think this is currently a problem but it’s a prudent thing to do”. Without it, the statement is open to interpretation: were any users actually affected?
Then say that. Use two paragraphs if you have to.
I was hoping you would share your simplified version of the GitHub quote. So let me attempt it instead -
"On the evening of March 8, we logged out all users from GitHub.com who had logged in prior to 12:03 UTC on March 8. This was done to protect users from an extremely rare, but potentially serious, security vulnerability affecting a very small number of GitHub.com sessions. No user accounts were affected"
I really couldn't simplify much without losing information. Logging out users isn't the same as invalidation of authenticated sessions because this probably revoked access to bots / API calls etc.
"On the evening of March 8, we logged out all users from GitHub.com who had logged in prior to 12:03 UTC on March 8. This was done to protect users from an extremely rare, but potentially serious, security vulnerability affecting a very small number of GitHub.com sessions. No user accounts were affected"
I really couldn't simplify much without losing information. Logging out users isn't the same as invalidation of authenticated sessions because this probably revoked access to bots / API calls etc.
Email from [email protected], sent on March 9th
Last night, we logged out your Github account to fix a security flaw. Your account was not breached. You can read more details here [1].
[1] https://github.blog/2021-03-08-github-security-update-a-bug-...
Last night, we logged out your Github account to fix a security flaw. Your account was not breached. You can read more details here [1].
[1] https://github.blog/2021-03-08-github-security-update-a-bug-...
This is good but without the extra words "extremely rare, potential harm.." this feels like it was a dangerous miss. I would worry about future such occurrences rather than just archiving it. Also I would definitely read more details. So perhaps this message works better in educating users
PG is complaining about most complicated writing, which is not beautiful. It uses too many words and the wrong words, like "purchase" instead of "buy" and "utilize" instead of "use". It has complex phrases that add nothing. Github's blog post about fixing a security weakness [0] is a recent example:
"On the evening of March 8, we invalidated all authenticated sessions on GitHub.com created prior to 12:03 UTC on March 8 out of an abundance of caution to protect users from an extremely rare, but potentially serious, security vulnerability affecting a very small number of GitHub.com sessions."
"Out of an abundance of caution" adds only the smell of a desperate attempt to reassure the reader. The sentence would be much better without it.
I like rich language where it is useful or fitting but, usually, I only want to know what the writer is communicating.
Hmm. You may be right.
"On the evening of March 8, we invalidated all authenticated sessions on GitHub.com created prior to 12:03 UTC on March 8 out of an abundance of caution to protect users from an extremely rare, but potentially serious, security vulnerability affecting a very small number of GitHub.com sessions."
"Out of an abundance of caution" adds only the smell of a desperate attempt to reassure the reader. The sentence would be much better without it.
I like rich language where it is useful or fitting but, usually, I only want to know what the writer is communicating.
Hmm. You may be right.
can you learn to use > when quoting? its hard to read what you are saying vs what you are responding to.
like this:
> Hmm. You may be right.
thats all i ask
like this:
> Hmm. You may be right.
thats all i ask
[deleted]
I remember that sort of confounding beaureucratic usage of English being referred to as 'Mandarin' English.
That is interesting, because it implies exactly the opposite of what it seems to.
Mandarin was the official language of the government, and so all regional and local bureaucracies, during the days of dynasties in China. Although it may sound foreign to locals in various provinces, it guaranteed that every part of the government had a common understanding.
Quite the opposite of fluff for fluff's sake.
Mandarin was the official language of the government, and so all regional and local bureaucracies, during the days of dynasties in China. Although it may sound foreign to locals in various provinces, it guaranteed that every part of the government had a common understanding.
Quite the opposite of fluff for fluff's sake.
Even for poetic or literary writing, a baseline of simple language will tend to make it stronger. “Fancy” language is best used sparingly to add emphasis and emotion. Reaching for the 5 dollar word or complex sentence structure every time is the mark of an amateur. There are some masters who can make it work, but that’s yet another “know the rules so you can break them” type of deal.
I can't get over that your comment starts with "Meh." – which seems to go against everything it goes on to say.
I'd rather "write usefully" than "write simply". If a "fancy" word is more useful for getting my thoughts across, then I will use it.
I think of "useful" language as a balance of precision, concision, and understandability. If I use terms that I don't expect my audience to understand, then my language not very "useful" even if it's the most precise and concise. Conversely, there's no reason for me to refrain from terms which I expect my audience to understand if using them makes my language more precise or concise.
I think of "useful" language as a balance of precision, concision, and understandability. If I use terms that I don't expect my audience to understand, then my language not very "useful" even if it's the most precise and concise. Conversely, there's no reason for me to refrain from terms which I expect my audience to understand if using them makes my language more precise or concise.
I agree, but it seems success is highly correlated with ability to bullsh*t. From school essays all the way to CEOs. If you can bluff your way with long stories, spew buzzwords continual assertions, and talk louder than everyone you seem to win.
PG 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 things for other people that they will need to understand and act on, and those are the people PG is writing for.
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. So it's good advice for anyone beginning to write something new, and it's good advice for anyone new to writing.
Write simply first, if you can. And above all, write in a style that your audience can absorb.
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 things for other people that they will need to understand and act on, and those are the people PG is writing for.
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. So it's good advice for anyone beginning to write something new, and it's good advice for anyone new to writing.
Write simply first, if you can. And above all, write in a style that your audience can absorb.
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?
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?
> 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.
Probably applies to writing programs too.
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.
> If an opinion is not broadly applicable then we shouldn't jump to conclusions and assume that was the authors intent.
Graham states in this essay that his goal is: "ideas leap into your head and you barely notice the words that got them there".
Given that this is the goal of his writing style, it's not at all surprising that his readers often jump to ("incorrect") conclusions barely noticing what got them there.
Most of the comments critiquing this essay can be boiled down to an obvious but important observation: simplicity requires either eliding necessary nuance or hiding complexity. The goal is usually the latter, but hiding complexity in this way requires a shared context.
Take a running program and strip it from its context (state). Then, drop the program into a new context. The meaning of the program can change drastically. Hell, it might not even type check anymore. The program text is the same but the meaning is different, and all that changed was the context. The only way to avoid this is to muddle up the program text with assertions on the context that ensure this "drop into new context" operation can't change the meaning of the program too much.
So too with writing. Specifying context decreases the amount of shared context required to avoid miscommunication, but also results in less simple writing.
Graham states in this essay that his goal is: "ideas leap into your head and you barely notice the words that got them there".
Given that this is the goal of his writing style, it's not at all surprising that his readers often jump to ("incorrect") conclusions barely noticing what got them there.
Most of the comments critiquing this essay can be boiled down to an obvious but important observation: simplicity requires either eliding necessary nuance or hiding complexity. The goal is usually the latter, but hiding complexity in this way requires a shared context.
Take a running program and strip it from its context (state). Then, drop the program into a new context. The meaning of the program can change drastically. Hell, it might not even type check anymore. The program text is the same but the meaning is different, and all that changed was the context. The only way to avoid this is to muddle up the program text with assertions on the context that ensure this "drop into new context" operation can't change the meaning of the program too much.
So too with writing. Specifying context decreases the amount of shared context required to avoid miscommunication, but also results in less simple writing.
I don't think it's just Graham though. I see this kind of thing in every comment section on hacker news. That would indicate to me the the cause is something different than this particular writing style.
People here LOVE to take statements and search for contexts where the statement doesn't work, then act like that was what the author was arguing.
People here LOVE to take statements and search for contexts where the statement doesn't work, then act like that was what the author was arguing.
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.
That interview with George Plimpton (I think) is great, but Hemingway does eventually go into a bit more detail when pressed. My interpretation is that he admires people who have a deep well of talent and knowledge and use that to push art and science in a new direction. Bill Watterson is an excellent classical painter and painted the Creation of Adam on his dorm room ceiling, and although Calvin and Hobbes doesn't look like Michelangelo, that painting and experience is "in" his comics. Dali, Cezanne, and Mozart could have easily mimed past art and music, but they saw beyond what was done before to push in new directions. For his part, Hemingway goes on to explain that (to him) writing is like an iceberg - 7/8 of it is experience and knowledge hidden from the reader - they only see the part sticking above the water.
I hadn't thought about it from that perspective. Funny thing that occurred to me about the famous iceberg principle is that Hemingway had a large unpublished/abandoned volume of writing on Nick Adams, the fictional hero of many of his short stories. So in a sense the Nick Adams his readers knew, was only exposed as a fraction of the character's full existence, so to speak. I can imagine a writer taking it further and creating an entire fictional town, writing many histories but not publishing them, but using the town as a setting for published works.
But back to the interview comment. I was thinking more literally, eg. when Cezanne does a painting of a landscape and/or some people, what details does he choose to actually paint? How many details does he include? Knowing that the viewer will recognize things from their broad outline. And with Mozart, well, I suppose there's things like how long should a piece last, what sort of rhythmic patterns are pleasing to audiences. Or, if you think of melodies as 'characters', how many different developments should they go through before recapitulating to their core.
But back to the interview comment. I was thinking more literally, eg. when Cezanne does a painting of a landscape and/or some people, what details does he choose to actually paint? How many details does he include? Knowing that the viewer will recognize things from their broad outline. And with Mozart, well, I suppose there's things like how long should a piece last, what sort of rhythmic patterns are pleasing to audiences. Or, if you think of melodies as 'characters', how many different developments should they go through before recapitulating to their core.
Yes - I certainly didn't want to impart 'the obvious' in my response, but I'm not sure if there's an answer to your more literal question. If there was, we would have read an HN post on how there's a great new AI that develops compelling literary works, art, and music based on analyzing past masters and current psyche. Of course, there are AI writing, painting, and music composition systems, but other than seemingly random chance, they have yet to produce something compelling (novel, yes).
I do believe many great artists had a certain degree of mental affliction - not so much to incapacitate, but to provide additional insight. For example, it's been said that Ravel's Bolero was written in the early throes of his mental affliction, hence the repetitive theme. I completely agree with you - compositions (classical and modern) ultimately take us on small adventures from one place to another and back - happiness, despair, melancholy, and so on. As you mention, the melodies are the main 'characters' in the story, supported by chord sequences, rhythmic patterns, ostinato, and so on, all perversely using our ancient and deep auditory instincts of baby wails, hurt fellow tribe members, dangerous animals, thunder, laughter, etc. against us to elicit an emotional response. A great song creates a personal story in the listener's mind based on past experiences. Great painters and authors strive for the same response, but I think it's a more difficult task; for some reason we're more susceptible to auditory emotions vs. visual or the written word. Of course, soundtrack composers combine the visual with auditory very effectively; the whole being more than the sum of individual parts.
As for creating an entire world on which to base novels and characters on, Hemingway does touch on this as well, stating roughly that he could have made The Old Man and the Sea 1,000 pages with every detail exposed and examined (and that approach has successfully been used before), but it was much more compelling (and difficult) for him to eliminate all unnecessary things and have the town exist under the waterline as internal experience and just let the novel show whats important, which connects the reader with the story, as they have to fill in the details with their own experiences and ideas as opposed to Hemingway's.
I do believe many great artists had a certain degree of mental affliction - not so much to incapacitate, but to provide additional insight. For example, it's been said that Ravel's Bolero was written in the early throes of his mental affliction, hence the repetitive theme. I completely agree with you - compositions (classical and modern) ultimately take us on small adventures from one place to another and back - happiness, despair, melancholy, and so on. As you mention, the melodies are the main 'characters' in the story, supported by chord sequences, rhythmic patterns, ostinato, and so on, all perversely using our ancient and deep auditory instincts of baby wails, hurt fellow tribe members, dangerous animals, thunder, laughter, etc. against us to elicit an emotional response. A great song creates a personal story in the listener's mind based on past experiences. Great painters and authors strive for the same response, but I think it's a more difficult task; for some reason we're more susceptible to auditory emotions vs. visual or the written word. Of course, soundtrack composers combine the visual with auditory very effectively; the whole being more than the sum of individual parts.
As for creating an entire world on which to base novels and characters on, Hemingway does touch on this as well, stating roughly that he could have made The Old Man and the Sea 1,000 pages with every detail exposed and examined (and that approach has successfully been used before), but it was much more compelling (and difficult) for him to eliminate all unnecessary things and have the town exist under the waterline as internal experience and just let the novel show whats important, which connects the reader with the story, as they have to fill in the details with their own experiences and ideas as opposed to Hemingway's.
Reminds 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.
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.
Less to do with insecurity, more to do with signifying membership of a club. A bit like a regimental tie, vocal fry or the latest pair of sneakers.
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
- Moby Dick
tldr
If you liked this essay, check out Politics and the English Language by Orwell.
It changed the way I think about writing and goes into a bit more detail.
https://www.orwellfoundation.com/the-orwell-foundation/orwel...
It changed the way I think about writing and goes into a bit more detail.
https://www.orwellfoundation.com/the-orwell-foundation/orwel...
When something feels easy to read, it's not just a matter of using simple words. To maximize scanability, you need to use a mix of long and short words, and also mix long and short sentences, until you achieve a kind of "flow". Famously, Dovlatov's prose (in Russian) avoids having words that start with the same letter in the same sentence, which is unnoticeable to the reader but makes the words just fly off the page.
Another trick I've found is making sure each word has unambiguous function. Here's some examples from other comments:
I had this impression recently while reading the Akbarnama, which is a sort of court-approved biography of the Mughal Emperor Akbar, written by his Grand Vizier -- Was the Emperor written, or was it the biography?
There are some cases in which your work demands a certain level of precision -- It could've continued like "in which your work demands are excessive", so you don't know if "demands" is a noun or a verb until you read on.
That "simple" writing lasts longer is disproved by many works of literature that have made their way to us through history -- It could've continued like "that simple writing is not so simple", so you don't know if "that" is a conjunction or determiner until you read on.
These are small things, but somehow the more I notice them, the clearer my writing becomes.
Another trick I've found is making sure each word has unambiguous function. Here's some examples from other comments:
I had this impression recently while reading the Akbarnama, which is a sort of court-approved biography of the Mughal Emperor Akbar, written by his Grand Vizier -- Was the Emperor written, or was it the biography?
There are some cases in which your work demands a certain level of precision -- It could've continued like "in which your work demands are excessive", so you don't know if "demands" is a noun or a verb until you read on.
That "simple" writing lasts longer is disproved by many works of literature that have made their way to us through history -- It could've continued like "that simple writing is not so simple", so you don't know if "that" is a conjunction or determiner until you read on.
These are small things, but somehow the more I notice them, the clearer my writing becomes.
> avoid having words that start with the same letter in the same sentence.
I remember when I was a teenager I used to get frustrated that English words had so many homophones and overlaps and synonyms. I thought why can't every concept and idea have its own distinct word? Why would we clutter up the language with fuzzy overlaps, overloaded terms, and the need to disambiguate so frequently? The disambiguation melts away with experience as you begin to sharpen your contextual locating skills. But I recall at one point I realized that one of the great things that is afforded by the language is that you have slack for adding phonetic variation to your sentences and they, for lack of a better word, sound less dumb. When something is repeated too much in a sentence or paragraph somehow it affords less clarity, and comes off childlike in some way. There's something about it that you can't quite twist out another facet on a subject through plain repetition. I never matured that idea any further, but it seemed like a fascinating insight into the operational workings of English.
I remember when I was a teenager I used to get frustrated that English words had so many homophones and overlaps and synonyms. I thought why can't every concept and idea have its own distinct word? Why would we clutter up the language with fuzzy overlaps, overloaded terms, and the need to disambiguate so frequently? The disambiguation melts away with experience as you begin to sharpen your contextual locating skills. But I recall at one point I realized that one of the great things that is afforded by the language is that you have slack for adding phonetic variation to your sentences and they, for lack of a better word, sound less dumb. When something is repeated too much in a sentence or paragraph somehow it affords less clarity, and comes off childlike in some way. There's something about it that you can't quite twist out another facet on a subject through plain repetition. I never matured that idea any further, but it seemed like a fascinating insight into the operational workings of English.
Along the lines of what you point out, I've noticed that the word 'read' often causes misparsing - but you don't realize until you've read on for a bit more and realize that the sentence doesn't make any sense. At that point you read the sentence twice again and realize that it was using the other meaning of read.
This is something that I've run into commonly enough that I try to write 'read' only for the present tense 'read a book', and 'redd' for the past tense 'redd the email.'
This is something that I've run into commonly enough that I try to write 'read' only for the present tense 'read a book', and 'redd' for the past tense 'redd the email.'
Why not "have read" instead?
I think (linguistic) parsing fits your description of "function" here - like the opposite of a garden-path sentence https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Garden-path_sentence
Was the Emperor written, or was it the biography?
You skipped the first half of my sentence, which makes it pretty clear who wrote the book. At least, I think it does. In any case, you did make me realize the last clause is awkwardly written, so thanks! I amended my original comment.
You skipped the first half of my sentence, which makes it pretty clear who wrote the book. At least, I think it does. In any case, you did make me realize the last clause is awkwardly written, so thanks! I amended my original comment.
> > Was the Emperor written, or was it the biography?
Based on the other examples, I think they meant, at the point where you have up to "written", do you expect the sentence to continue as above, or as something like:
> I had this impression recently while reading the Akbarnama, which is a sort of court-approved biography of the Mughal Emperor Akbar, [who was] written as the greatest leader the Mughal empire ever had.
Although if so, I don't think that one's a very good example, as suggested by the need to editorialize in the "[who was]" above.
Based on the other examples, I think they meant, at the point where you have up to "written", do you expect the sentence to continue as above, or as something like:
> I had this impression recently while reading the Akbarnama, which is a sort of court-approved biography of the Mughal Emperor Akbar, [who was] written as the greatest leader the Mughal empire ever had.
Although if so, I don't think that one's a very good example, as suggested by the need to editorialize in the "[who was]" above.
Seeing as Akbar was supposedly illiterate, the first interpretation would be doubly hilarious.
At this point I think we just need to add this website to a penalty list and give it some small fraction of the calculated score it gets to be on the front page.
[deleted]
"Never use a long word when a diminutive one will do." :)
Simple writing definitely has its place along side more complex writing. It depends on the goal for sure. Writing to an audience to convey an idea. Maybe simple is better. Writing a document for the sales team of your product? Probably want to make it simple and leave out complexities.
I do however understand some of the comments saying that complex writing can be more artful. A good analogy, symbolism, or metaphor can go a long way to driving home a point in a more elegant way.
I do however understand some of the comments saying that complex writing can be more artful. A good analogy, symbolism, or metaphor can go a long way to driving home a point in a more elegant way.
A metaphor could be worth one thousand words but it’s not the case that simple writing can’t use metaphors, just less fancy words, less ornament, less bombastic, etc
I recommend everyone to use the Hemingway Editor to keep track of how easy it is to read your texts: https://hemingwayapp.com/
Especially, if you're a tech writer.
Explaining complex things in a simple way is what you should aim for.
My #1 rule in writing: "if you can remove this word, and the reader can still understand what you mean then do so"
Especially, if you're a tech writer.
Explaining complex things in a simple way is what you should aim for.
My #1 rule in writing: "if you can remove this word, and the reader can still understand what you mean then do so"
When I was in college, an English professor shared this statement commonly attributed to Mark Twain, "I have made this longer than usual because I have not had time to make it shorter."
It was actually Blaise Pascal who said it. But the point is, that clear writing means removing lots of fluff.
It was actually Blaise Pascal who said it. But the point is, that clear writing means removing lots of fluff.
Oh the irony of using an Italian word to describe his goal to write simply. Italian is way more verbose than English.
> the more deeply readers will engage with it
You're already hypocritical - readers don't want to 'engage' with writing. People don't want to 'engage' at all. This is not an ordinary way of talking about things outside a pretty niche circle of VCs and marketing managers.
Choose what to read and who to associate with as well as it will strongly influence your own language :)
You're already hypocritical - readers don't want to 'engage' with writing. People don't want to 'engage' at all. This is not an ordinary way of talking about things outside a pretty niche circle of VCs and marketing managers.
Choose what to read and who to associate with as well as it will strongly influence your own language :)
[deleted]
I don't think I agree. I find 'engage' to be a fairly average verb in this context. More importantly, if that's the most hypocritical word you can find I think he's probably taking his own advice in this article.
I think he’s talking about “engage” in the meaning of the word before it became a metric. Like to think about it, try it out in your own life, and discuss with others. Not view, like, share, comment, subscribe.
I think this is PG's worst opinion.
The man is undeniably intelligent, undeniably successful, and undeniably talented in business (and deserves huge credit for his contributions to the startup community).
But I just thing he's deeply wrong here. His simple writing style (and those that have inherited/copied it) is a detriment to the community.
It's the take of a (talented!) engineering mind. It's the same attitude that engineers often take with building digital products ("we don't need a designer - just present the UI elements simply and people will get it.")
Design is an art. Communication is an art. Writing is an art. Essays are an art. They have function, of course, and a simple straightforward style is, indeed, a style that is more functional for some.
But it also diminishes the joy of reading and purees it into the blandness of an economics textbook. I've tried to read his essays and yes, they have some great ideas, but they're just....bland.
They're like Soylent for the mind. Does it deliver nutrition to your body in an maximally-efficient vehicle? Sure. Do you enjoy drinking that Soylent shake?
shiver
EDIT: I should explicitly clarify something: I'm not arguing that one should use jargon or unnecessarily complex words in their writing. That's obviously bad. But there's a gap between the "simple writing style" and "enjoyable rich prose".
The man is undeniably intelligent, undeniably successful, and undeniably talented in business (and deserves huge credit for his contributions to the startup community).
But I just thing he's deeply wrong here. His simple writing style (and those that have inherited/copied it) is a detriment to the community.
It's the take of a (talented!) engineering mind. It's the same attitude that engineers often take with building digital products ("we don't need a designer - just present the UI elements simply and people will get it.")
Design is an art. Communication is an art. Writing is an art. Essays are an art. They have function, of course, and a simple straightforward style is, indeed, a style that is more functional for some.
But it also diminishes the joy of reading and purees it into the blandness of an economics textbook. I've tried to read his essays and yes, they have some great ideas, but they're just....bland.
They're like Soylent for the mind. Does it deliver nutrition to your body in an maximally-efficient vehicle? Sure. Do you enjoy drinking that Soylent shake?
shiver
EDIT: I should explicitly clarify something: I'm not arguing that one should use jargon or unnecessarily complex words in their writing. That's obviously bad. But there's a gap between the "simple writing style" and "enjoyable rich prose".
“The gap between most writing and pure ideas is not filled with poetry.” It’s a simple sentence, filled with ideas, humour even. And it comes across vividly for me as some prone to over elaboration. It always comes back to “as simple as possible” being a rule to live by, write code by.
You ever try to read some social science papers? Or a consultant's slide deck? They're quagmires of "wtf does this even mean?"
In college (and then consulting), I was basically trained to write like I'm trying to convince someone I'm smart. It only got in the way once I left and started trying to communicate real ideas. Graham's advice is very good for mundane, day-to-day writing.
In college (and then consulting), I was basically trained to write like I'm trying to convince someone I'm smart. It only got in the way once I left and started trying to communicate real ideas. Graham's advice is very good for mundane, day-to-day writing.
I would guess such writing in the humanities is exactly the sort of style he’s taking aim at.
I think it depends on where you are from and what you read growing up. I hail from a place that most outsiders would describe as unsophisticated, so naturally I rebelled in my youth by reading the most technically and prosaically dense language I could find. While I do still enjoy that type writing -- fiction books where I have to keep a dictionary, calculator, and pad of graph paper handy -- for professional communication pg and Feynman and all the advocates for simplicity are right.
There is no benefit to insiders or outsiders in a field to unnecessary use of jargon when simpler forms of expression are available. I greatly the prefer the no-nonsense, practical, straight talking, ignore the eggshells on the floor, git-r-done communication of a classical sci-fi engineer.
There is no benefit to insiders or outsiders in a field to unnecessary use of jargon when simpler forms of expression are available. I greatly the prefer the no-nonsense, practical, straight talking, ignore the eggshells on the floor, git-r-done communication of a classical sci-fi engineer.
Writing is also a craft, generally the work of an artisan more than an artist. The first purpose of a well tempered sentence is the communication of an idea, while the plucking of heartstrings comes second or not at all. PG's emphasis is clearly on exchanging facts efficiently and effectively in text-based non-fiction forums where creatively engaging the reader's emotions would divert the narrative a bit off topic.
Paul having success by writing simply does not prove that simple writing is the key to successful writing. There are tons of other factors that make writing successful, such as the popularity and name recognition of the writer. I have found that writing tips ever seem to work as well for the recipient as whoever is giving the tips.
The most important rule of writing is to know your audience. Every other rule follows from that one.
I feel personally attacked.
Give yourself a pat on the back. I can't be so forthright about my shortcomings. You just gave me a nice chuckle, however.
Haha this is the guy who writes like an SAT exam question. It is very flat and boring, unmemorable. Of course the guy is a bazillionaire, I may never be like him, but the style of writing is stale like sparkling water gone flat. But I have read probably every one of his articles and taken away his ideas as the canonical guide for startup wisdom and success.
>Haha this is the guy who writes like an SAT exam question. It is very flat and boring, unmemorable.
However PG writes (and philosophically/socially I disagree with a lot), he has had a large following for his posts / essays, aside from his YC role (from people who have nothing to do with startups). That's hardly what you gain from being "flat, boring, and unmemorable".
Besides, you have missed the point. He is not arguing for plain style as opposed to literary flourishes or fun jokes, or whatever you consider not flat.
He is arguing for clarity as opposed to flourishes for flourishes sake, academic obscurantism, and so on.
You can write simply without it being "boring and unmemorable". Hemingway over Tom Wolfe, or Hume over Nietchze.
However PG writes (and philosophically/socially I disagree with a lot), he has had a large following for his posts / essays, aside from his YC role (from people who have nothing to do with startups). That's hardly what you gain from being "flat, boring, and unmemorable".
Besides, you have missed the point. He is not arguing for plain style as opposed to literary flourishes or fun jokes, or whatever you consider not flat.
He is arguing for clarity as opposed to flourishes for flourishes sake, academic obscurantism, and so on.
You can write simply without it being "boring and unmemorable". Hemingway over Tom Wolfe, or Hume over Nietchze.
I think he is indeed arguing for clarity, which is why arguing for simplicity undermines his own argument.
Nietzsche is a lucid writer (well, Zarathustra excepted). Rewriting Nietzsche to be more "simple" would certainly be a gargantuan mistake.
Nietzsche is a lucid writer (well, Zarathustra excepted). Rewriting Nietzsche to be more "simple" would certainly be a gargantuan mistake.
[deleted]
The reading passages of standardized tests are not just dull but intentionally full of filler and awkward phrasing, to throw off the reader. Paul is good at conveying his ideas succinctly
I always felt that much of Kurt Vonnegut's charm was due to the simplicity. If that ties in with what you were saying.
Of course that doesn't imply the images and ideas are simple.
Similarly, I always thought Tom Robbins tried too hard to be simple and sci-fi.
A poor man's Vonnegut, and a Lazy man's Pynchon..heh..
Of course that doesn't imply the images and ideas are simple.
Similarly, I always thought Tom Robbins tried too hard to be simple and sci-fi.
A poor man's Vonnegut, and a Lazy man's Pynchon..heh..
I think this article ends up giving excellent examples for why you shouldn't just "write simply". There is basically no argumentation happening here and most statements are just thrown out as truths. Yes, it might be quick and easy to read through, but it's not very good writing.
Examples:
> Plus it's more considerate to write simply. When you write in a fancy way to impress people, you're making them do extra work just so you can seem cool. It's like trailing a long train behind you that readers have to carry.
Notice how he's arguing against "write in a fancy way to impress people" and not "write in a fancy way". Most authors write in a "fancy" way to invoke a feeling in the reader. They don't add random words to "seem cool". Is spending a few more words to get the reader into a happy/sad mood "inconsiderate"? That's an interesting discussion, but in his quest to "write simply" he's just skipped right by it.
> It's too much to hope that writing could ever be pure ideas. You might not even want it to be. But for most writers, most of the time, that's the goal to aim for. The gap between most writing and pure ideas is not filled with poetry.
What is evening happening in this paragraph? First he's questioning whether it's possible for "writing to ever be pure ideas" without explaining what that's even supposed to mean. Then he says that most people aim for that. And somehow the solution is "not filled with poetry". I don't understand a thing of this. He's implying so much without explaining anything.
Examples:
> Plus it's more considerate to write simply. When you write in a fancy way to impress people, you're making them do extra work just so you can seem cool. It's like trailing a long train behind you that readers have to carry.
Notice how he's arguing against "write in a fancy way to impress people" and not "write in a fancy way". Most authors write in a "fancy" way to invoke a feeling in the reader. They don't add random words to "seem cool". Is spending a few more words to get the reader into a happy/sad mood "inconsiderate"? That's an interesting discussion, but in his quest to "write simply" he's just skipped right by it.
> It's too much to hope that writing could ever be pure ideas. You might not even want it to be. But for most writers, most of the time, that's the goal to aim for. The gap between most writing and pure ideas is not filled with poetry.
What is evening happening in this paragraph? First he's questioning whether it's possible for "writing to ever be pure ideas" without explaining what that's even supposed to mean. Then he says that most people aim for that. And somehow the solution is "not filled with poetry". I don't understand a thing of this. He's implying so much without explaining anything.
PG tends to write in a, “take it or leave it” style, you get used to it. He’s never, to my eyes, seemed interested in convincing you via flashy argument, he’d rather spend the extra time conveying what he’s experienced a bit more, and let you decide if it’s worth caring about.
For me, I try to remember that a lot of what he’s saying may pattern match to an arrogant heuristic, but that’s just because 99 out of 100 people who strike that tone are blowhards. He is the 100th person, and there’s a lot to be gained if I set aside my own ego and just try to understand what he’s describing.
For me, I try to remember that a lot of what he’s saying may pattern match to an arrogant heuristic, but that’s just because 99 out of 100 people who strike that tone are blowhards. He is the 100th person, and there’s a lot to be gained if I set aside my own ego and just try to understand what he’s describing.
Having written other things that are popular doesn't answer to the OP's comment nuanced arguments are a good and helpful thing.
PG doesn't pattern match as such because other people are blowhards. He's actually arrogant. Which is fine! He's been very successful enough times that it seems unlikely to be coïncidence.
But he also writes essays that are complete whiffs. It's not an ego thing by the reader. There are many examples of no nuance where there is actually a hell of a lot of nuance in the subject at hand. So people quote the essays or act on them blindly because they rely on them as exhaustive when I don't think that that is the case or his actual intention.
PG doesn't pattern match as such because other people are blowhards. He's actually arrogant. Which is fine! He's been very successful enough times that it seems unlikely to be coïncidence.
But he also writes essays that are complete whiffs. It's not an ego thing by the reader. There are many examples of no nuance where there is actually a hell of a lot of nuance in the subject at hand. So people quote the essays or act on them blindly because they rely on them as exhaustive when I don't think that that is the case or his actual intention.
The main issue with the article is the imperative title. It's not "here's why I like to write in this style." It's telling the reader to write that way. Sorry but no, I won't write the way you do because you tell me to.
edit: the point of my comment is not that I won't write that way. It's that the author is talking about his own preferences, but the title makes it sound prescriptive. In a way it illustrates the opposite point. Opinions are nuanced, and a two-word title written in the imperative doesn't convey the nuance of what the author is trying to say.
edit: the point of my comment is not that I won't write that way. It's that the author is talking about his own preferences, but the title makes it sound prescriptive. In a way it illustrates the opposite point. Opinions are nuanced, and a two-word title written in the imperative doesn't convey the nuance of what the author is trying to say.
This is weirdly sensitive. Like the guy who sees guitar lessons advertised on the bulletin board and gets mad because he doesn’t want guitar lessons.
No, that's not the point. I'm not talking about _me_ specifically, I'm talking about how the article has a prescriptive title. It implies that everyone should write this way. In reality it's about the author's preferences.
If the blog post is about programming and it adopts a didactic style, i.e., telling the reader what to do, and it is obviously based on personal preferences -- either the author's or someone else's -- I react the same way. To me, these writings are only opinions.
The internet is absolutely loaded with programmers offering opinions or repeating the opinions of others but framing them as directives. Do this or don't do that. Or the more subtle: I like X and and you should, too. These authors can be argumentative if the opinions are challenged, as if one was disobeying a directive, or contradicting a fact, instead of disagreeing with an individual or group opinion.
The internet is absolutely loaded with programmers offering opinions or repeating the opinions of others but framing them as directives. Do this or don't do that. Or the more subtle: I like X and and you should, too. These authors can be argumentative if the opinions are challenged, as if one was disobeying a directive, or contradicting a fact, instead of disagreeing with an individual or group opinion.
I'm not so convinced of the difference between the "real world" and online. Misinformation, propaganda & charlatans all existed in droves long before the internet. In fact, it's almost certainly true that your average internet user is far better informed about actual facts than the average pre-internet person. Scepticism about what you read is advisable everywhere, internet users have become better at it than previous generations.
Hence, I also don't think there's anything at all wrong with the imperative style of writing (or I might as well say "there is nothing wrong with it"). Since it is incumbent upon the reader to consider whether or how far to trust the author anyway, it should make no difference whether the statements are presented as fact or opinion. To treat them differently is to give the author far too much power over your thinking.
And so, as the author, given that any sensible reader will put your statements in context anyway, you might as well simply state them directly.
Hence, I also don't think there's anything at all wrong with the imperative style of writing (or I might as well say "there is nothing wrong with it"). Since it is incumbent upon the reader to consider whether or how far to trust the author anyway, it should make no difference whether the statements are presented as fact or opinion. To treat them differently is to give the author far too much power over your thinking.
And so, as the author, given that any sensible reader will put your statements in context anyway, you might as well simply state them directly.
"Scepticism about what you read is advisable everywhere [unsolicited advice], internet users have become better at it than previous generations.[opinion stated as if fact]"
https://ed.stanford.edu/news/stanford-researchers-find-stude...
https://www.nea.org/advocating-for-change/new-from-nea/stude...
https://www.chronicle.com/article/students-fall-for-misinfor...
https://ed.stanford.edu/news/stanford-researchers-find-stude...
https://www.nea.org/advocating-for-change/new-from-nea/stude...
https://www.chronicle.com/article/students-fall-for-misinfor...
Surely you can work through that and pick out the parts you find useful/interesting, no? Or are you saying the assertive voice makes that harder?
The commenter is not saying the writing has no value. They're saying that the main issue is the prescriptive title.
PG tends to write in a, “take it or leave it” style, you get used to it. He’s never, to my eyes, seemed interested in convincing you via flashy argument
PG's "responses" are a good contrast, if you're curious what "pg trying to persuade the reader" sounds like. http://paulgraham.com/kedrosky.html
PG's "responses" are a good contrast, if you're curious what "pg trying to persuade the reader" sounds like. http://paulgraham.com/kedrosky.html
Wow I’m amazed that you don’t have the same interpretation to me here.
Perhaps the first difference between us is I immediately assumed PG is talking about transmitting ideas (argumentation or proposition), ie writing essays and not writing fiction.
What I assume he means about “writing not being pure ideas”, he means there’s an overhead in transmitting ideas via writing. This is analogous to using programming languages to capture ideas, hence anything but simplicity offends because it is analogous to (in)elegance in code.
I think this essay is excellent but it seems I was more attuned to his message, or at least it met my expectations.
Perhaps the first difference between us is I immediately assumed PG is talking about transmitting ideas (argumentation or proposition), ie writing essays and not writing fiction.
What I assume he means about “writing not being pure ideas”, he means there’s an overhead in transmitting ideas via writing. This is analogous to using programming languages to capture ideas, hence anything but simplicity offends because it is analogous to (in)elegance in code.
I think this essay is excellent but it seems I was more attuned to his message, or at least it met my expectations.
Ironically, as far as I'm concerned, excellent poetry _is_ about as close as writing gets to "pure ideas" (or at the very least pure emotion). Average poetry, maybe not so much.
I think, as usual, there's a lot of nuance here. I think emotion is inextricably linked to almost all forms of communication, and that there's not such a bright line between fiction and non fiction in that regard.
The books that have taught me the most are not necessarily the ones with the most information density or even the most clarity of thought (although both help). The ones that have really conveyed their points effectively to me have all had an element of weaving them into a narrative that I could engage with, examine from different angles, absorb and remember.
But I'm also pretty sympathetic to the idea of cutting fluff at all opportunities and getting to the root of what you want to say - that's the one thing that's improved my writing the most.
I think, as usual, there's a lot of nuance here. I think emotion is inextricably linked to almost all forms of communication, and that there's not such a bright line between fiction and non fiction in that regard.
The books that have taught me the most are not necessarily the ones with the most information density or even the most clarity of thought (although both help). The ones that have really conveyed their points effectively to me have all had an element of weaving them into a narrative that I could engage with, examine from different angles, absorb and remember.
But I'm also pretty sympathetic to the idea of cutting fluff at all opportunities and getting to the root of what you want to say - that's the one thing that's improved my writing the most.
> Ironically, as far as I'm concerned, excellent poetry _is_ about as close as writing gets to "pure ideas" (or at the very least pure emotion).
Depends on the time period. I wouldn't exactly say that T. S. Eliot's poetry was about pure idea (or pure emotion). He did revel a lot in the fact that he was very educated and the readers are probably less so. Still a canonical author though.
Depends on the time period. I wouldn't exactly say that T. S. Eliot's poetry was about pure idea (or pure emotion). He did revel a lot in the fact that he was very educated and the readers are probably less so. Still a canonical author though.
> "Most authors write in a "fancy" way to invoke a feeling in the reader. They don't add random words to "seem cool"."
I'd bet money this is mostly wrong, and most authors are writing in a fancy way to seem fancy. That's part of the reason their writing is often bad.
There are exceptions, but I'd argue that failure is the general case.
> "I don't understand a thing of this."
Clarity of thought without purple prose fluff? That's my take away from it anyway. Basically, most of the time extra purple prose fluff is not poetry and just gets in the way. Poetry would be an exception to this rule.
This essay is also similar to another one of his from 2015 (which has more explicit examples): http://www.paulgraham.com/talk.html
I'd bet money this is mostly wrong, and most authors are writing in a fancy way to seem fancy. That's part of the reason their writing is often bad.
There are exceptions, but I'd argue that failure is the general case.
> "I don't understand a thing of this."
Clarity of thought without purple prose fluff? That's my take away from it anyway. Basically, most of the time extra purple prose fluff is not poetry and just gets in the way. Poetry would be an exception to this rule.
This essay is also similar to another one of his from 2015 (which has more explicit examples): http://www.paulgraham.com/talk.html
Actually, poetry frowns on purple prose too. Hence the “prose” part.
But you can’t call adjectives and similes and metaphors all purple prose.
But you can’t call adjectives and similes and metaphors all purple prose.
Sure - and there's some subjectivity to 'write simply'.
The idea is good though, bias towards clarity and be aware of how complex your writing is. Don't use big words to try and seem smart or fancy because they obscure meaning - there are rare exceptions to this, but they should be intentional and rare.
The idea is good though, bias towards clarity and be aware of how complex your writing is. Don't use big words to try and seem smart or fancy because they obscure meaning - there are rare exceptions to this, but they should be intentional and rare.
I agree about jargon and such but PG writes without any literary devices at all. Don’t you think that’s going too far?
“That dude is sneaky” “That dude is sneakier than a fox”
Why cut out fox?
“That dude is sneaky” “That dude is sneakier than a fox”
Why cut out fox?
I think most of the time it should be cut out, the times you leave it in should be intentional and rare.
If you read stuff that's doing that kind of thing all of the time it makes it harder to read and the writing is often worse. It's something newer writers tend to do for some reason, I'm not sure why.
If you read stuff that's doing that kind of thing all of the time it makes it harder to read and the writing is often worse. It's something newer writers tend to do for some reason, I'm not sure why.
“It follows that any struggle against the abuse of language is a sentimental archaism, like preferring candles to electric light or hansom cabs to aeroplanes“
Removing the simile reduces the meaning of “sentimental archaism”. Similes clarify meaning. That’s what all imagery is for.
Removing the simile reduces the meaning of “sentimental archaism”. Similes clarify meaning. That’s what all imagery is for.
Sometimes it clarifies meaning, most of the time it adds nothing. "Sneakier than a fox" doesn't help.
That quote is from Orwell's Politics and the English Language: https://www.orwellfoundation.com/the-orwell-foundation/orwel...
While the one sentence out of context seems unnecessarily complex, most of Orwell's writing is pretty simple to read.
Another bit from that essay:
"The writer either has a meaning and cannot express it, or he inadvertently says something else, or he is almost indifferent as to whether his words mean anything or not. This mixture of vagueness and sheer incompetence is the most marked characteristic of modern English prose, and especially of any kind of political writing. As soon as certain topics are raised, the concrete melts into the abstract and no one seems able to think of turns of speech that are not hackneyed: prose consists less and less of words chosen for the sake of their meaning, and more and more of phrases tacked together like the sections of a prefabricated hen-house."
Arguably, Orwell would probably agree with PG.
Using imagery to clarify meaning can be done well, but part of doing it well is using the tools sparingly and intentionally with an eye towards clarity.
Another relevant bit from that Orwell essay:
"As I have tried to show, modern writing at its worst does not consist in picking out words for the sake of their meaning and inventing images in order to make the meaning clearer. It consists in gumming together long strips of words which have already been set in order by someone else, and making the results presentable by sheer humbug. The attraction of this way of writing is that it is easy. It is easier – even quicker, once you have the habit – to say 'In my opinion it is not an unjustifiable assumption' that than to say 'I think'."
I'd argue 'sneakier than a fox' is an example of what he's talking about. A lame pre-existing set of words that does little to explain or clarify anything.
That quote is from Orwell's Politics and the English Language: https://www.orwellfoundation.com/the-orwell-foundation/orwel...
While the one sentence out of context seems unnecessarily complex, most of Orwell's writing is pretty simple to read.
Another bit from that essay:
"The writer either has a meaning and cannot express it, or he inadvertently says something else, or he is almost indifferent as to whether his words mean anything or not. This mixture of vagueness and sheer incompetence is the most marked characteristic of modern English prose, and especially of any kind of political writing. As soon as certain topics are raised, the concrete melts into the abstract and no one seems able to think of turns of speech that are not hackneyed: prose consists less and less of words chosen for the sake of their meaning, and more and more of phrases tacked together like the sections of a prefabricated hen-house."
Arguably, Orwell would probably agree with PG.
Using imagery to clarify meaning can be done well, but part of doing it well is using the tools sparingly and intentionally with an eye towards clarity.
Another relevant bit from that Orwell essay:
"As I have tried to show, modern writing at its worst does not consist in picking out words for the sake of their meaning and inventing images in order to make the meaning clearer. It consists in gumming together long strips of words which have already been set in order by someone else, and making the results presentable by sheer humbug. The attraction of this way of writing is that it is easy. It is easier – even quicker, once you have the habit – to say 'In my opinion it is not an unjustifiable assumption' that than to say 'I think'."
I'd argue 'sneakier than a fox' is an example of what he's talking about. A lame pre-existing set of words that does little to explain or clarify anything.
Well those two paragraphs you quoted have similes in them, hyperbole, slang, and characterization.
Sure, my off the top example is lame but that’s not my point. You’re saying that they’re rarely used, almost never, yet those paragraph you quoted have plenty of similes and other literary devices.
I’d argue that you can’t recognize literary devices so that’s why you’re confusing what these people are trying to say. Yes, you do need to make an effort to come up with original and interesting similes and metaphors, but they are not to be avoided
Sure, my off the top example is lame but that’s not my point. You’re saying that they’re rarely used, almost never, yet those paragraph you quoted have plenty of similes and other literary devices.
I’d argue that you can’t recognize literary devices so that’s why you’re confusing what these people are trying to say. Yes, you do need to make an effort to come up with original and interesting similes and metaphors, but they are not to be avoided
Or instead of
>It follows that any struggle against the abuse of language is a sentimental archaism
You could say
Struggling against the abuse of language is like being emotionally trapped in the past.
There is no reason to use two rarely used words (sentimental, archaism) in that sentence.
You could say
Struggling against the abuse of language is like being emotionally trapped in the past.
There is no reason to use two rarely used words (sentimental, archaism) in that sentence.
Yeah but you still used a simile, you just used one that you like more, more fitting to the time.
But you’re still using a literary device to increase the clarity of “struggling against the abuse of language”. What these guys are arguing is that there is no use for similes. You should say: “People struggle against the abuse of language” and leave it at that.
But you’re still using a literary device to increase the clarity of “struggling against the abuse of language”. What these guys are arguing is that there is no use for similes. You should say: “People struggle against the abuse of language” and leave it at that.
"There is basically no argumentation happening here and most statements are just thrown out as truths."
If you read through Paul's previous essays, you may notice that he falls into this habit frequently.
If you read through Paul's previous essays, you may notice that he falls into this habit frequently.
Of course you should write simply. But of course, the context matters. For example, when writing mathematical texts, somehow being able to convey pure ideas is the ideal. Poetry is not needed in that context, it is confusing, as the beauty is in the ideas conveyed, not in the words used to convey it. In such a context, for example using the expression "vector space" counts as writing simply, while in a general context it does not.
Writing is an imperfect technology for moving thoughts between minds. "Writing simply" is valuable if it communicates your thought more efficiently and accurately (and it is indeed a common peccadillo to write thoughts in a bloated and inefficient manner), but like you're pointing out, some thoughts are not compressible beyond a certain point. For example, here's some Ovid quoted in a book I'm reading. I'd like to hear how you could write this "simply" without losing resolution of the thought from which it originated:
--------
There is no greater wonder than to range
The starry heights, to leave the earth’s dull regions,
To ride the clouds, to stand on Atlas’ shoulders,
And see, far off, far down, the little figures
Wandering here and there, devoid of reason,
Anxious, in fear of death, and so advise them,
And so make fate an open book…
Full sail, I voyage Over the boundless ocean, and I tell you
Nothing is permanent in all the world. All things are fluid; every image forms,
Wandering through change. Time is itself a river In constant movement, and the hours flow by
Like water, wave on wave, pursued, pursuing,
Forever fugitive, forever new. That which has been, is not; that which was not, Begins to be; motion and moment always In process of renewal…
Not even the so-called elements are constant… Nothing remains the same: the great renewer, Nature, makes form from form, and, oh, believe me That nothing ever dies….
--------
There is no greater wonder than to range
The starry heights, to leave the earth’s dull regions,
To ride the clouds, to stand on Atlas’ shoulders,
And see, far off, far down, the little figures
Wandering here and there, devoid of reason,
Anxious, in fear of death, and so advise them,
And so make fate an open book…
Full sail, I voyage Over the boundless ocean, and I tell you
Nothing is permanent in all the world. All things are fluid; every image forms,
Wandering through change. Time is itself a river In constant movement, and the hours flow by
Like water, wave on wave, pursued, pursuing,
Forever fugitive, forever new. That which has been, is not; that which was not, Begins to be; motion and moment always In process of renewal…
Not even the so-called elements are constant… Nothing remains the same: the great renewer, Nature, makes form from form, and, oh, believe me That nothing ever dies….
(you) > There is basically no argumentation happening here and most statements are just thrown out as truths. Yes, it might be quick and easy to read through, but it's not very good writing.
After reading this I would expect a solid argument from you that "it's not very good writing" because "There is basically no argumentation happening" and "most statements are just thrown out as truths".
(you) > Notice how he's arguing against
So... is argumentation happening or not?
(pg) > When you write in a fancy way to impress people, you're making them do extra work just so you can seem cool.
(you) > Notice how he's arguing against "write in a fancy way to impress people" and not "write in a fancy way".
He is definitely taking for granted here that everyone who is writing in a "fancy way" is doing so to impress people. At the very least, he seems to be suggesting that this is often the case. There is no question whatsoever though, that this is happening at least some of the time.
(you) > Most authors write in a "fancy" way to invoke a feeling in the reader. They don't add random words to "seem cool"
"Most"? According to what? Do you have anything more to support this assertion than he had to support his? Are you really in a position to be critiquing him about this?
(pg) > It's too much to hope that writing could ever be pure ideas. You might not even want it to be. But for most writers, most of the time, that's the goal to aim for. The gap between most writing and pure ideas is not filled with poetry.
(you) > What is evening happening in this paragraph? First he's questioning whether it's possible for "writing to ever be pure ideas" without explaining what that's even supposed to mean.
There's a fair amount of implicit logic here, but i'd say the general idea is something along the lines of:
No, he said "for most writers, most of the time, that's the goal to aim for". He is saying that they ought to be aiming for that. If they already were doing so, then it would go without saying.
(you) > And somehow the solution is "not filled with poetry"
Again, I think you are misunderstanding what he is trying to say. Building on my previous explanation, I'd say he is contrasting his ideal of simple writing with poetry, which is often cryptic.
Circling back to my initial statement, I'd suggest you worry about your own arguments before criticizing those of others.
After reading this I would expect a solid argument from you that "it's not very good writing" because "There is basically no argumentation happening" and "most statements are just thrown out as truths".
(you) > Notice how he's arguing against
So... is argumentation happening or not?
(pg) > When you write in a fancy way to impress people, you're making them do extra work just so you can seem cool.
(you) > Notice how he's arguing against "write in a fancy way to impress people" and not "write in a fancy way".
He is definitely taking for granted here that everyone who is writing in a "fancy way" is doing so to impress people. At the very least, he seems to be suggesting that this is often the case. There is no question whatsoever though, that this is happening at least some of the time.
(you) > Most authors write in a "fancy" way to invoke a feeling in the reader. They don't add random words to "seem cool"
"Most"? According to what? Do you have anything more to support this assertion than he had to support his? Are you really in a position to be critiquing him about this?
(pg) > It's too much to hope that writing could ever be pure ideas. You might not even want it to be. But for most writers, most of the time, that's the goal to aim for. The gap between most writing and pure ideas is not filled with poetry.
(you) > What is evening happening in this paragraph? First he's questioning whether it's possible for "writing to ever be pure ideas" without explaining what that's even supposed to mean.
There's a fair amount of implicit logic here, but i'd say the general idea is something along the lines of:
- The purpose of writing (for "most writers, most of the time") is to communicate ideas.
- Care ought to be taken in preventing the medium (text) from inhibiting this communication.
- Simple writing can be understood by a more broad audience
- Therefore, simple writing will help these writers towards their end of communicating these ideas to a broader audience
No, he said "for most writers, most of the time, that's the goal to aim for". He is saying that they ought to be aiming for that. If they already were doing so, then it would go without saying.
(you) > And somehow the solution is "not filled with poetry"
Again, I think you are misunderstanding what he is trying to say. Building on my previous explanation, I'd say he is contrasting his ideal of simple writing with poetry, which is often cryptic.
Circling back to my initial statement, I'd suggest you worry about your own arguments before criticizing those of others.
It's Arc but for prose.
seems like he's arguing that the pinnacle of communication is the API spec
I do think there can be a beauty in more esoteric words and longer sentences that cause them to feel more like poetry. This can, perhaps counterintuitively, make sentences feel more conversational as opposed to less.
I can edit the above to;
> I do think specific words and long sentences have their place. They can be used to alter the flow of a sentence and make it feel more conversational instead of less.
But it's not the way I talk. I enjoy the way you can alter the cadence of sentence to impact the reader. For example: the phrase, "perhaps counterintuitively," is like a rolling hill the reader spends extra energy to climb but then engages them with the writer, "I'm interested, I like hearing about counterintuitive things" -- it's almost an invitation. You've set an expectation that something counterintuitive is ahead, so what's next?
Generally, I could use more of Paul's advice in my own writing. And that's the fun of writing, learning to write is a very organic process. But I'm sure everyone can find their own style somewhere in between simple, poetic, natural, or whatever makes you feel the happiest about your work.
I can edit the above to;
> I do think specific words and long sentences have their place. They can be used to alter the flow of a sentence and make it feel more conversational instead of less.
But it's not the way I talk. I enjoy the way you can alter the cadence of sentence to impact the reader. For example: the phrase, "perhaps counterintuitively," is like a rolling hill the reader spends extra energy to climb but then engages them with the writer, "I'm interested, I like hearing about counterintuitive things" -- it's almost an invitation. You've set an expectation that something counterintuitive is ahead, so what's next?
Generally, I could use more of Paul's advice in my own writing. And that's the fun of writing, learning to write is a very organic process. But I'm sure everyone can find their own style somewhere in between simple, poetic, natural, or whatever makes you feel the happiest about your work.
"The gap between most writing and pure ideas is not filled with poetry." - Paul Graham
"I dwell in Possibility –
A fairer House than Prose –
More numerous of Windows –
Superior – for Doors –
Of Chambers as the Cedars –
Impregnable of eye –
And for an everlasting Roof
The Gambrels of the Sky –
Of Visitors – the fairest –
For Occupation – This –
The spreading wide my narrow Hands
To gather Paradise –"
Emily Dickenson
"I dwell in Possibility –
A fairer House than Prose –
More numerous of Windows –
Superior – for Doors –
Of Chambers as the Cedars –
Impregnable of eye –
And for an everlasting Roof
The Gambrels of the Sky –
Of Visitors – the fairest –
For Occupation – This –
The spreading wide my narrow Hands
To gather Paradise –"
Emily Dickenson
I feel the same about that article as with the book Rework, everything is interesting and insightful but to keep the writing simple, what is said had to be molded into simple messages ; with a probably slightly different meaning. It seems such text work better with a technical readership.
EDIT: but in all honesty, my most read texts online are where I managed to remove as much words as possible.
EDIT: but in all honesty, my most read texts online are where I managed to remove as much words as possible.
I mean his writing is understandable, but it's not good writing. To this native English speaker, the sentences are a bit "Janet & John" - very short, very few compound versions. It's fine for his purpose, or in say a manual for a microwave.
You can compare this with the writing of Patio11, which often seems to be the opposite extreme - chains of double negatives, obscure words etc etc.
You can compare this with the writing of Patio11, which often seems to be the opposite extreme - chains of double negatives, obscure words etc etc.
[deleted]
I've failed at writing. In its cathartic process I sketched.
https://medium.com/@solidi/the-one-about-blogging-cd9e65a205...
https://medium.com/@solidi/the-one-about-blogging-cd9e65a205...
This advice: to write "simply", like much writing advice offered by people who have not studied communication, is pathetic.
Why? Because it offers nothing concrete that can help a given piece of writing or your writing in general.
To illustrate, consider comparing pieces of writing:
A caveat: its hard to set up a worthwhile comparison in the absence of context, meaning external information that pinpoints the points of comparisons. To keep this short, I'll propose and discuss two common comparisons that writers and readers make. Feel free to challenge these instances:
1. Grading tests.
The purpose of grades is exactly to offer a reductionist evaluation that explicitly identifies the "better" answer. Please agree that grading becomes more difficult as one moves from true false, to multiple choice through short answer and finally to essay exams. Taken to the extreme, awarding a Pulitzer prize is a form of grading.
Under conventional definitions of simple, as one moves toward that extreme, isn't it difficult to justify ever calling the simpler answer better?
To me, the limiting case of this claim cribs from Occam's razor. The exact same answer, is better, if its shorter. Again to me, this is a difficult case to make, and ultimately is question begging, because it assumes the grader knows two answers are the same. (Notably to this hacker news community, there is a special case covering whether shorter code performing the same task is better.)
Being more sympathetic to the advice giver (and in line with other comments), the advice really concerns clarity, conciseness, coherence or something similar. It is not controversial to say that, all else equal, the answer possessing this quality is better. (Does this claim require the sameness stipulation? It would makes discussions of that quality more interesting.)
Thus, the advice is either wrong or mislabeled.
2. Revising writing.
Whether stated or not, revision is the signal target of all writing advice. To use the same framework, the author has two pieces, the current piece and a future piece. Of course, the author wants to make the future piece "better"
Leaving the point about clarity and its cousins aside, there are obvious cases where simpler is better. For example, the exact same piece is better absent extraneous material. Put another way, cutting the material only improves the piece if it is extraneous. You can see where this leads: more empty advice.
The bottom line here is that simple is underspecified. It has no value without a much, and probably impossible to formulate, stronger definition of simple.
So, trying to be constructive, what would, concretely, improve a given piece or your writing in general? Try this:
Instead of editing down a given piece - trying to make it simpler - write two pieces for the same context, maximizing the differences between each. This takes time, but it is a much better exercise, especially for the beginner, than going back and forth with the same piece.
I guarantee that having two pieces (not paragraphs, sentences, words or other subsets of the piece) will lead to a much better final piece, even novel, than having one piece and real or potential variants.
Next, and this is the best "piece" of advice, I have: have others read your work - as many as you can, and discuss it with them as much as possible.
TLDR Good writing takes work and conscious practice
Why? Because it offers nothing concrete that can help a given piece of writing or your writing in general.
To illustrate, consider comparing pieces of writing:
A caveat: its hard to set up a worthwhile comparison in the absence of context, meaning external information that pinpoints the points of comparisons. To keep this short, I'll propose and discuss two common comparisons that writers and readers make. Feel free to challenge these instances:
1. Grading tests.
The purpose of grades is exactly to offer a reductionist evaluation that explicitly identifies the "better" answer. Please agree that grading becomes more difficult as one moves from true false, to multiple choice through short answer and finally to essay exams. Taken to the extreme, awarding a Pulitzer prize is a form of grading.
Under conventional definitions of simple, as one moves toward that extreme, isn't it difficult to justify ever calling the simpler answer better?
To me, the limiting case of this claim cribs from Occam's razor. The exact same answer, is better, if its shorter. Again to me, this is a difficult case to make, and ultimately is question begging, because it assumes the grader knows two answers are the same. (Notably to this hacker news community, there is a special case covering whether shorter code performing the same task is better.)
Being more sympathetic to the advice giver (and in line with other comments), the advice really concerns clarity, conciseness, coherence or something similar. It is not controversial to say that, all else equal, the answer possessing this quality is better. (Does this claim require the sameness stipulation? It would makes discussions of that quality more interesting.)
Thus, the advice is either wrong or mislabeled.
2. Revising writing.
Whether stated or not, revision is the signal target of all writing advice. To use the same framework, the author has two pieces, the current piece and a future piece. Of course, the author wants to make the future piece "better"
Leaving the point about clarity and its cousins aside, there are obvious cases where simpler is better. For example, the exact same piece is better absent extraneous material. Put another way, cutting the material only improves the piece if it is extraneous. You can see where this leads: more empty advice.
The bottom line here is that simple is underspecified. It has no value without a much, and probably impossible to formulate, stronger definition of simple.
So, trying to be constructive, what would, concretely, improve a given piece or your writing in general? Try this:
Instead of editing down a given piece - trying to make it simpler - write two pieces for the same context, maximizing the differences between each. This takes time, but it is a much better exercise, especially for the beginner, than going back and forth with the same piece.
I guarantee that having two pieces (not paragraphs, sentences, words or other subsets of the piece) will lead to a much better final piece, even novel, than having one piece and real or potential variants.
Next, and this is the best "piece" of advice, I have: have others read your work - as many as you can, and discuss it with them as much as possible.
TLDR Good writing takes work and conscious practice
Taken to the extreme this advice leads to collections like Randall Munroe's Thing Explainer or Dr Seuss' Green Eggs and Ham.
The idea of "trying" to write is in the last two of PG's essays.
I would just like to reveal that the word "essay" comes from French verb "essayer" which means "to try".
This makes the phrase "trying to write an essay" somewhat tautological doesn't it?
I'm curious whether PG knows this little fact.
If language is like a 6th sense into a shared platonic realm of ideas, it wouldn't be unsurprising that PG is able to survey the concept of "essays" accurately without knowing its etymology.
I would just like to reveal that the word "essay" comes from French verb "essayer" which means "to try".
This makes the phrase "trying to write an essay" somewhat tautological doesn't it?
I'm curious whether PG knows this little fact.
If language is like a 6th sense into a shared platonic realm of ideas, it wouldn't be unsurprising that PG is able to survey the concept of "essays" accurately without knowing its etymology.
Great article.
There are people who want to communicate ideas to as wide an audience as possible. Those people will instinctively use speech and writing in a way that is most accessible.
There are people who want to intimidate, or impress. Those people will hide behind jargon and lingo.
There are people who want to communicate ideas to as wide an audience as possible. Those people will instinctively use speech and writing in a way that is most accessible.
There are people who want to intimidate, or impress. Those people will hide behind jargon and lingo.
Counterpoint; writing simply isn't useful in all cases, communicating simply is telling a first grade student that multiplication is repeated addition, yes it works in most day to day examples, but it breaks down when you start looking closely - how do you add something to itself zero time?
Communicating simply can leave vague generalities to a technical conversation or decision making process that allows for those involved to make the wrong assumptions; but if you take the time to give precision to the process you can remove those assumptions without harming the overall communication. One doesn't need to go in depth about how a decision tree works or a random forest works to explain the pros and cons of the process, and the assumptions made to get the results.
Writing simply in all cases is the equivalent of "when you have a hammer, everything looks like a nail," writing precisely is using a screwdriver when you're working with screws and a hammer with nails. Use the right tool for the job, sometimes simple isn't correct, and sometimes precision isn't either (elementary school algebra vs algebraic theory).
Communicating simply can leave vague generalities to a technical conversation or decision making process that allows for those involved to make the wrong assumptions; but if you take the time to give precision to the process you can remove those assumptions without harming the overall communication. One doesn't need to go in depth about how a decision tree works or a random forest works to explain the pros and cons of the process, and the assumptions made to get the results.
Writing simply in all cases is the equivalent of "when you have a hammer, everything looks like a nail," writing precisely is using a screwdriver when you're working with screws and a hammer with nails. Use the right tool for the job, sometimes simple isn't correct, and sometimes precision isn't either (elementary school algebra vs algebraic theory).
Jacques Barzun somewhere remarked that what makes for difficult reading is not length or number of words but density of thought. He instanced Dickens as a writer who used long words and complicated syntax but whom everyone finds easy to read.
Some of the comments here might benefit from what I believe is an unstated assumption in this piece.
The assumption is that the purpose of your writing is to argue for a particular viewpoint/stance/take on an issue in a sober way.
I don't believe the author is saying "write simply" if you are writing poetry or you are trying to inspire and motivate with emotion.
Most of the author's writings are dry, devoid of fluff, and to the point, which I think flows from embracing the thinking behind this piece.
Purpose dictates style.
The assumption is that the purpose of your writing is to argue for a particular viewpoint/stance/take on an issue in a sober way.
I don't believe the author is saying "write simply" if you are writing poetry or you are trying to inspire and motivate with emotion.
Most of the author's writings are dry, devoid of fluff, and to the point, which I think flows from embracing the thinking behind this piece.
Purpose dictates style.
Regarding writing as editing:
This is a big problem in churches. As a child and young adult I spent countless hours listening to sermons on Sunday mornings. At some point, I realized that many sermons were delivered without editing. Every week the pastor has to deliver a certain amount of content, regardless of whether they have anything valuable to say. As a result, at many churches what you get is a combination of plagiarism and stream of consciousness. At only a few did I find any evidence of editing, and at even fewer editing by another person. The difference in quality was immense, and I believe that to a substantial extent the growth of the church would be correlated with that factor.
This is a big problem in churches. As a child and young adult I spent countless hours listening to sermons on Sunday mornings. At some point, I realized that many sermons were delivered without editing. Every week the pastor has to deliver a certain amount of content, regardless of whether they have anything valuable to say. As a result, at many churches what you get is a combination of plagiarism and stream of consciousness. At only a few did I find any evidence of editing, and at even fewer editing by another person. The difference in quality was immense, and I believe that to a substantial extent the growth of the church would be correlated with that factor.
Writing simply is certainly a great skill. It's like playing simply. You should be able to play an instrument without any vibrato or improvisation.
But that doesn't imply you always have to write simply. To often I've had friends who declare that writing in school is dumb and that we should always write simple and short. What's implicit in their view is that the text is not important, simply the message. The text should be merely a vehicle to convey the message.
I'd counter that the text is not extricable from the message. The form and style of the text colors the message and provides a signal of whom the author is speaking to and with what tone. I read a James Baldwin novel and I have the feeling of someone preaching to me with fervor and ferocity. I read a Paul Graham essay and I have the feeling of a drily funny, at times arrogant lecture. Like it or not, PG has a style that is his brand. It's a good brand, but to claim that it's purely simplicity is presumptuous.
But that doesn't imply you always have to write simply. To often I've had friends who declare that writing in school is dumb and that we should always write simple and short. What's implicit in their view is that the text is not important, simply the message. The text should be merely a vehicle to convey the message.
I'd counter that the text is not extricable from the message. The form and style of the text colors the message and provides a signal of whom the author is speaking to and with what tone. I read a James Baldwin novel and I have the feeling of someone preaching to me with fervor and ferocity. I read a Paul Graham essay and I have the feeling of a drily funny, at times arrogant lecture. Like it or not, PG has a style that is his brand. It's a good brand, but to claim that it's purely simplicity is presumptuous.
Pinker wrote a whole book about this, much better written, in fact. Unlike an HN essayist, Pinker also is an actual wide-audience best-seller. And unlike this essay, Pinker correctly acknowledges many nuances.
I couldn't get through Pinker's book. He cites 'Clear and Simple as the Truth' as inspiration, but his acorn falls so far from the tree.
I think he mostly does as he preaches. My biggest complaint is the occasional contradiction, but if you read other writing style guides, he is not more contradictory than the average.
It’s more that the former book sets a very high bar I don’t think he clears in the attempt to make the topic more accessible.
A book is longer than an essay, therefore more nuances can potentially be captured?
True in general, but Pinker does so from the preface, so not valid as explanation.
There was an excellent citation:
"I apologize, I wrote you a long letter because I didn't have the time to write you a shorter one."
"I apologize, I wrote you a long letter because I didn't have the time to write you a shorter one."
> My goal when writing might be called saltintesta: the ideas leap into your head and you barely notice the words that got them there.
Simple and "saltintesta" writing is effective in many contexts. However, as any critic of Twitter culture can tell you, the style has an important pitfall.
Why do so many people react strongly to seemingly innocuous Graham essays? How does a prescription to "Write Simply" cause such strong emotional reactions?
I think it's in part because Graham writes in a simple and memetic ("saltintesta") style about not-so-simple topics. He writes to a very large audience is filled with readers who have a different latent perspective on that missing detail and nuance. Some of those readers fill in the nuance and context differently from how Graham intended. Unfortunately, they do so while barely noticing the words that got them there! Hence, conflict.
But can we really blame the reader for falling into this pit, when the author's goal was for the words to be barely noticed?
The comments on this article are a case study in the benefits and pitfalls of the Simple and "saltintesta" writing style. The style demands a lot of the reader's latent context. It therefore works well when writing to a group of people who are very much like the author but breaks down when writing across even small differences in culture, life experiences, or values.
Simple and "saltintesta" writing is effective in many contexts. However, as any critic of Twitter culture can tell you, the style has an important pitfall.
Why do so many people react strongly to seemingly innocuous Graham essays? How does a prescription to "Write Simply" cause such strong emotional reactions?
I think it's in part because Graham writes in a simple and memetic ("saltintesta") style about not-so-simple topics. He writes to a very large audience is filled with readers who have a different latent perspective on that missing detail and nuance. Some of those readers fill in the nuance and context differently from how Graham intended. Unfortunately, they do so while barely noticing the words that got them there! Hence, conflict.
But can we really blame the reader for falling into this pit, when the author's goal was for the words to be barely noticed?
The comments on this article are a case study in the benefits and pitfalls of the Simple and "saltintesta" writing style. The style demands a lot of the reader's latent context. It therefore works well when writing to a group of people who are very much like the author but breaks down when writing across even small differences in culture, life experiences, or values.
> the ideas leap into your head and you barely notice the words that got them there.
Ah, the good old wrong idea that somehow language is a tool that can clone ideas from one brain to another. It doesn't work like that.
Ah, the good old wrong idea that somehow language is a tool that can clone ideas from one brain to another. It doesn't work like that.
Right. I'm surprised at how little thought people seem to have put into that idea.
You can hear echoes of that when Musk talks about all the Neuralink stuff and just communicating with "pure thoughts" or whatever. What these pure thoughts and ideas, disconnected from language, are supposed to be, is left as an exercise to the listener.
You can hear echoes of that when Musk talks about all the Neuralink stuff and just communicating with "pure thoughts" or whatever. What these pure thoughts and ideas, disconnected from language, are supposed to be, is left as an exercise to the listener.
I am coming from this angle https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypodermic_needle_model
Can we write our way from the idea idea? If so, how? If not, why?
Anyone else raising an eyebrow at a guy like PG with a non-SSL site?
Yeah, I saw that too. Notice how that normally gets folks crucified here.
This could have been an email.
So confused why anyone would assume PG is talking about writing fiction or poetry. It’s an essay by an essayist on writing essays.
This "simple" style of writing demands a lot of the reader's and writer's shared context. Even in this comment section you can find two different commenters defending the essay but making different assumptions about what sort of writing PG is discussing! You assume essays, and another commenter assumes business writing. I happen to think you're both wrong, and that Graham's "Write Simply" prescription is meant to apply to much more than just business writing and essays (perhaps even all writing, but at least most writing).
Three people who know a fair amount about the author -- at least relatively speaking -- can't agree on the meaning of this essay.
Now, consider that some other people reading this essay might be genuinely confused about why we're discussing Parental Guidance.
Three people who know a fair amount about the author -- at least relatively speaking -- can't agree on the meaning of this essay.
Now, consider that some other people reading this essay might be genuinely confused about why we're discussing Parental Guidance.
Do you think he is saying Shakespeare or Wordsworth or any great novelist should have written in this style?
I think he is talking about a lot more than essays and business writing. Beyond that, I can't say much. I do not know Paul Graham and haven't even read all of his essays. There are certainly people who don't like Shakespeare's style. I don't know if Graham is one of those people.
He could have written a slightly clunkier essay that allowed me to understand with greater detail the entire collection of types of writing that he is discussing. He didn't want to write that essay, which is of course fine.
To be clear, I'm not "for" or "against" any writing style for the same reason that I don't get into religious wars about programming languages. I think this is a good essay with some solid advice for many different types of writers. But it's also, ironically, an essay that can be used to demonstrate why one might sometimes choose to write a bit less simply. Or, to write simply (plain words and simple sentences) but without trying to "jump into the reader's brain without them noticing".
It's really the combination of "Write Simply" and "saltintesta" that I think deserved at least a bit of a "well, sure, but realize this approach can be a footgun".
He could have written a slightly clunkier essay that allowed me to understand with greater detail the entire collection of types of writing that he is discussing. He didn't want to write that essay, which is of course fine.
To be clear, I'm not "for" or "against" any writing style for the same reason that I don't get into religious wars about programming languages. I think this is a good essay with some solid advice for many different types of writers. But it's also, ironically, an essay that can be used to demonstrate why one might sometimes choose to write a bit less simply. Or, to write simply (plain words and simple sentences) but without trying to "jump into the reader's brain without them noticing".
It's really the combination of "Write Simply" and "saltintesta" that I think deserved at least a bit of a "well, sure, but realize this approach can be a footgun".
[deleted]
I think we have Hemingway to blame for this meme. I wonder why so very many authors feel the need to explicitly write these 'simple ode to simplicity' pieces — where each sentence in the exhortation has itself been optimized iteratively until no waste remains, so no lexical pixel has gone to waste. Sentences like 'Simple writing also lasts better,' are the unfortunate artifacts of this process. These are like the Teslas of brevity-pornographers: a mere five words attesting to hours of careful whittling; a praise-worthy awkwardness that could never have been produced on a native-speaker's first try.
Na, I think he just got that wrong. If he revisited the essay after a few years he’d probably spot it. Stuck out for me too. But a kind of “snow blindness” develops towards written content after a while, and mistakes slip through.
> "Most readers' energy tends to flag part way through an article or essay."
> "When you write in a fancy way to impress people, you're making them do extra work just so you can seem cool."
> "So you can't assume that writing about a difficult topic means you can safely use difficult words."
I can't understand why someone writing about writing simply is using a word like "flag" that is completely jarring and never used colloquially. While you can sort of surmise what it means from the context, I still had to look up the definition to confirm. And if it might be meant as a way to naturally teach someone the word, why is that lesson buried in an essay about writing simply? I guess I'll chalk it up to him not realizing how obtuse that word is, couldn't think of anything simpler like "wane", "fall", or "recede", and didn't want to change up the structure of that sentence.
I just can't imagine how that irony got past any editor.
> "When you write in a fancy way to impress people, you're making them do extra work just so you can seem cool."
> "So you can't assume that writing about a difficult topic means you can safely use difficult words."
I can't understand why someone writing about writing simply is using a word like "flag" that is completely jarring and never used colloquially. While you can sort of surmise what it means from the context, I still had to look up the definition to confirm. And if it might be meant as a way to naturally teach someone the word, why is that lesson buried in an essay about writing simply? I guess I'll chalk it up to him not realizing how obtuse that word is, couldn't think of anything simpler like "wane", "fall", or "recede", and didn't want to change up the structure of that sentence.
I just can't imagine how that irony got past any editor.
[deleted]
always good, and always some things to take away.
Does pg recycle his themes? I have seen this one a number of times over the years, and others as well.
I guess everyone does that, to some extent, but this is literally the entire content of his piece. Hasn't he written something like that before? Why does he repeat himself every few years almost verbatim?
I guess everyone does that, to some extent, but this is literally the entire content of his piece. Hasn't he written something like that before? Why does he repeat himself every few years almost verbatim?
This boring imperative falls into the same trap as "Be Clear".
Gregory Williams, author of the classic "Towards Clarity and Style", has a thoughtful rebuttal to these punchlines in his book's description (quoting an older edition):
This is a book about writing clearly. I wish it could be short and simple like some others more widely known, but I want to do more than just urge writers to "Omit Needless Words" or "Be clear." Telling me to "Be clear" is like telling me to "Hit the ball squarely." I know that. What I don't know is how to do it. To explain how to write clearly, I have to go beyond platitudes.
But I want to do more than just help you write clearly. I also want you to understand this matter to understand why some prose seems clear, other prose not, and why two readers might disagree about it; why a passive verb can be a better choice than an active verb; why so many truisms about style are either incomplete or wrong. More important, I want that understanding to consist not of anecdotal bits and pieces, but of a coherent system of principles more useful than "Write short sentences."
[1] https://press.princeton.edu/titles/9445.html
Gregory Williams, author of the classic "Towards Clarity and Style", has a thoughtful rebuttal to these punchlines in his book's description (quoting an older edition):
This is a book about writing clearly. I wish it could be short and simple like some others more widely known, but I want to do more than just urge writers to "Omit Needless Words" or "Be clear." Telling me to "Be clear" is like telling me to "Hit the ball squarely." I know that. What I don't know is how to do it. To explain how to write clearly, I have to go beyond platitudes.
But I want to do more than just help you write clearly. I also want you to understand this matter to understand why some prose seems clear, other prose not, and why two readers might disagree about it; why a passive verb can be a better choice than an active verb; why so many truisms about style are either incomplete or wrong. More important, I want that understanding to consist not of anecdotal bits and pieces, but of a coherent system of principles more useful than "Write short sentences."
• • •
[1] https://press.princeton.edu/titles/9445.html
Small correction: I mixed up the author and the co-author's names—it is Joseph Williams and Gregory Colomb.
Elmore Leonard gives similar advice, summing it up nicely, "Try to leave out the part that readers tend to skip."
https://www.nytimes.com/2001/07/16/arts/writers-writing-easy...
https://www.nytimes.com/2001/07/16/arts/writers-writing-easy...
"When you write in a fancy way to impress people..."
Is that the only reason to write in sentences of 10 words or more?
Is that the only reason to write in sentences of 10 words or more?
This is not just in writing, but in any form of communication including presentations or public speaking.
Writing simply and learning how to present things in such a way that anyone can understand has probably been the most valuable skill for my career progression.
I have seen too many cases where technical/domain experts miss this and instead use words that only people who work in the same domain as them would understand. The result is that when they do a presentation at least half the people in the room have no idea what they are speaking about but are too polite to say anything.
I also live in a country where most of the population are not native english speakers and this has allowed me to understand that a lot of people think by using complicated language they sound smarter, which is the furthest possible thing from the truth. In one incident I actually had someone who liked to show everyone how smart he was ask me, if I can help him find a more complicated way/wording to say something in a presentation he was working on so he can sound smarter. My only assumption was that for him people not understanding acted as a giant ego boost. He was PhD, that was also lecturing at one of the local universities. I can only imagine that his students had absolutely no idea what he was talking about most of the time and I am sure he took great pride in it.
In university, back in Canada where I was born I had a similar experience when one of my math teachers started the year off by telling the entire class how he is very proud of his vocabulary. Needless to say on one of the tests he used a word that no one understood. After numerous students asked him the same question he finally got angry and announced to the entire class what the word meant.
Personally I encourage my team to do the following in every work presentation: 1. Pretend you are presenting to a friend or family member who has no idea about the subject matter 2. Any words that would be known by people who are either inexperienced or outside of your expertise should include a definition the first time you use it. It can be written or it can be verbal, but it needs to be there
Writing simply and learning how to present things in such a way that anyone can understand has probably been the most valuable skill for my career progression.
I have seen too many cases where technical/domain experts miss this and instead use words that only people who work in the same domain as them would understand. The result is that when they do a presentation at least half the people in the room have no idea what they are speaking about but are too polite to say anything.
I also live in a country where most of the population are not native english speakers and this has allowed me to understand that a lot of people think by using complicated language they sound smarter, which is the furthest possible thing from the truth. In one incident I actually had someone who liked to show everyone how smart he was ask me, if I can help him find a more complicated way/wording to say something in a presentation he was working on so he can sound smarter. My only assumption was that for him people not understanding acted as a giant ego boost. He was PhD, that was also lecturing at one of the local universities. I can only imagine that his students had absolutely no idea what he was talking about most of the time and I am sure he took great pride in it.
In university, back in Canada where I was born I had a similar experience when one of my math teachers started the year off by telling the entire class how he is very proud of his vocabulary. Needless to say on one of the tests he used a word that no one understood. After numerous students asked him the same question he finally got angry and announced to the entire class what the word meant.
Personally I encourage my team to do the following in every work presentation: 1. Pretend you are presenting to a friend or family member who has no idea about the subject matter 2. Any words that would be known by people who are either inexperienced or outside of your expertise should include a definition the first time you use it. It can be written or it can be verbal, but it needs to be there
I started reading "On Writing Well" by W.Zinsser (one of often recommended classics) lately.
I've only read first few chapters, but one of the core ideas is, apart from writing simply, to write concisely:
- If you can use one word instead of three to convey same idea, use one.
- Iterate on what you wrote, and ruthlessly eliminate words that don't add value.
It's illustrated with a real example where he crosses out a dozen of phrases from a short text: https://ibb.co/k62CkLR
It sounds extreme but I found this framework very useful e.g. when writing code comments, wiki docs, pull request info etc.
I've only read first few chapters, but one of the core ideas is, apart from writing simply, to write concisely:
- If you can use one word instead of three to convey same idea, use one.
- Iterate on what you wrote, and ruthlessly eliminate words that don't add value.
It's illustrated with a real example where he crosses out a dozen of phrases from a short text: https://ibb.co/k62CkLR
It sounds extreme but I found this framework very useful e.g. when writing code comments, wiki docs, pull request info etc.
> And remember, if you're writing in English, that a lot of your readers won't be native English speakers. Their understanding of ideas may be way ahead of their understanding of English.
Ah, condescension. The secret ingredient for a fantastic essay.
Ah, condescension. The secret ingredient for a fantastic essay.
Depends on the purpose, I guess. If the point is just to convey information, ideas, then yes, write simply. If the purpose is to, at least in part, to entertain, then don't.
Thinking about the entertainment perspective and e.g. the journalists and bloggers I like, I think it's pretty similar to how we perceive music. I remember a paper from quite a few years ago that found (through fMRI) that we most enjoy music that our brain can mostly predict, but sometimes it would mispredict/would be wrong about the next few notes that follow. It's a balance.
Non trivial writing must be similar. I.e. it may not be about music, but entertainment: it should be somewhat in line with what you expect but at the same time throw challenges at you. It should make you work at an enjoyable level.
What he says about ageing, OTOH, is probably pretty universal. There is some debate in my country (Hungary) about the literature curriculum in elementary and high schools. Traditionally children are supposed to read XIX and early XX century novels from some of our great writers. This hasn't changed since I went to school decades ago. I remember hating these. Most of them were very hard to follow, very hard to decipher the story from the complex text. I guess what happened is that what they were writing was challenging to the level of being entertaining to their contemporaries (just like it is with today's writers, of course) but then the change in the language made it too challenging for most of us (at least the young, untrained minds).
Thinking about the entertainment perspective and e.g. the journalists and bloggers I like, I think it's pretty similar to how we perceive music. I remember a paper from quite a few years ago that found (through fMRI) that we most enjoy music that our brain can mostly predict, but sometimes it would mispredict/would be wrong about the next few notes that follow. It's a balance.
Non trivial writing must be similar. I.e. it may not be about music, but entertainment: it should be somewhat in line with what you expect but at the same time throw challenges at you. It should make you work at an enjoyable level.
What he says about ageing, OTOH, is probably pretty universal. There is some debate in my country (Hungary) about the literature curriculum in elementary and high schools. Traditionally children are supposed to read XIX and early XX century novels from some of our great writers. This hasn't changed since I went to school decades ago. I remember hating these. Most of them were very hard to follow, very hard to decipher the story from the complex text. I guess what happened is that what they were writing was challenging to the level of being entertaining to their contemporaries (just like it is with today's writers, of course) but then the change in the language made it too challenging for most of us (at least the young, untrained minds).
> The other reason my writing ends up being simple is the way I do it. I write the first draft fast, then spend days editing it, trying to get everything just right. Much of this editing is cutting, and that makes simple writing even simpler.
Related: There was a post here a few days ago, where the author described 2 styles of writing: Writing start to end, naturally evolving, and working out of sequence, with many edits. She focus of that article was the author preferring the former. This article's author prefers the latter.
Related: There was a post here a few days ago, where the author described 2 styles of writing: Writing start to end, naturally evolving, and working out of sequence, with many edits. She focus of that article was the author preferring the former. This article's author prefers the latter.
I thought that piece was actually hard to read. Roughly the same size paragraphs, and many. No headings. Only simple words. Unsuitable to scanning back and forth. It forced me to read it and then I got bored.
Paul is on the better side of every moat he makes.
Love pg but lol at opening with "I write simple" and immediately throwing around some Italian words.
When i was in school, our technical writing teacher constantly drilled in one key concept:
'Get to the point.'
As in, be concise, be clear, don't use more words than necessary and make your writing as simple to understand as possible.
Most writing exists to try and communicate an idea. The words used should be chosen to make that idea as clear as possible with the least amount of effort. (Apart from abstract poetry and such I suppose.)
'Get to the point.'
As in, be concise, be clear, don't use more words than necessary and make your writing as simple to understand as possible.
Most writing exists to try and communicate an idea. The words used should be chosen to make that idea as clear as possible with the least amount of effort. (Apart from abstract poetry and such I suppose.)
The really good writers can hold multiple ideas in juxtaposition and allow the reader to draw their own conclusions.
For grins I pasted PG's text into the demo readability tool at <https://app.readable.com/text/?demo>.
'Write Simply' received an overall grade of 'A', and a very-approachable Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level of 5.9. It's said to be readable by 100% of the literate general public, which is only 85% of the full general public.
But, out of the 507 words and 38 sentences, 4 sentences were flagged as "very long" (over 30 syllables) and 15 as "long" (over 20 syllables).
Two 'hard words' – over 12 letters or over 4 syllables – were flagged, somewhat ironically: "unnecessarily intellectual".
'Write Simply' received an overall grade of 'A', and a very-approachable Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level of 5.9. It's said to be readable by 100% of the literate general public, which is only 85% of the full general public.
But, out of the 507 words and 38 sentences, 4 sentences were flagged as "very long" (over 30 syllables) and 15 as "long" (over 20 syllables).
Two 'hard words' – over 12 letters or over 4 syllables – were flagged, somewhat ironically: "unnecessarily intellectual".
I think this is an extension of pg’s advice he gives to YC startups when they describe themselves. For those who have looked a website or sat through a pitch deck and wondered what the hell the company actually does, this advice is crucial. I don’t believe he is talking about fictional literary works, but rather language for communications.
YC was probably the first proponent of the X for Y type of startup descriptions, because the analogies are simple and give you a starting point to begin understanding.
YC was probably the first proponent of the X for Y type of startup descriptions, because the analogies are simple and give you a starting point to begin understanding.
Being concise and to-the-point is just as important as using simple English.
That blog post is too long for the ideas it conveys (kinda ironic?). Here are some things I found tiring to read:
"There's an Italian dish called saltimbocca, which means "leap into the mouth." My goal when writing might be called saltintesta: the ideas leap into your head and you barely notice the words that got them there."
^ This analogy is distracting and not required to communicate a simple concept.
"It's too much to hope that writing could ever be pure ideas. You might not even want it to be. But for most writers, most of the time, that's the goal to aim for. The gap between most writing and pure ideas is not filled with poetry."
^Just delete this. What are you trying to say here?
"It's like trailing a long train behind you that readers have to carry."
^I don't understand this analogy. Long train I am trying to carry behind me? That is a ridiculous and distracting image you have put into the readers mind.
"If the friction of reading is low enough, more keep going till the end."
^This is an obtuse and awkward way of saying: "People are more likely to read things they easily understand"
"Indeed, lasting is not merely an accidental quality of chairs, or writing. It's a sign you did a good job."
^ Where did chairs come from?
But although these are all real advantages of writing simply, none of them are why I do it. The main reason I write simply is that it offends me not to."
^ Delete, doesn't add any value tbh
That blog post is too long for the ideas it conveys (kinda ironic?). Here are some things I found tiring to read:
"There's an Italian dish called saltimbocca, which means "leap into the mouth." My goal when writing might be called saltintesta: the ideas leap into your head and you barely notice the words that got them there."
^ This analogy is distracting and not required to communicate a simple concept.
"It's too much to hope that writing could ever be pure ideas. You might not even want it to be. But for most writers, most of the time, that's the goal to aim for. The gap between most writing and pure ideas is not filled with poetry."
^Just delete this. What are you trying to say here?
"It's like trailing a long train behind you that readers have to carry."
^I don't understand this analogy. Long train I am trying to carry behind me? That is a ridiculous and distracting image you have put into the readers mind.
"If the friction of reading is low enough, more keep going till the end."
^This is an obtuse and awkward way of saying: "People are more likely to read things they easily understand"
"Indeed, lasting is not merely an accidental quality of chairs, or writing. It's a sign you did a good job."
^ Where did chairs come from?
But although these are all real advantages of writing simply, none of them are why I do it. The main reason I write simply is that it offends me not to."
^ Delete, doesn't add any value tbh
"""
As Kevin Williamson observed, Sowell is “that rarest of things among serious academics: plainspoken.” From 1991 until 2016, his nationally syndicated column set the bar for clear writing, though the topics he covered were often complex. “Too many academics write as if plain English is beneath their dignity,” Sowell once said, “and some seem to regard logic as an unconstitutional infringement of their freedom of speech.” If academics birth needlessly complex prose, editors too often midwife it. An editor, Sowell once quipped, would probably have changed Shakespeare’s “To be or not to be, that is the question” to something awful, like “The issue is one of existence versus non-existence.”
"""
https://www.city-journal.org/thomas-sowell-race-poverty-cult...
https://www.city-journal.org/thomas-sowell-race-poverty-cult...
I agree with the thesis, but a voice in the back of my head was whispering "Newspeak..."[1]
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newspeak
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newspeak
Writing simply doesn’t require an unnaturally restricted vocabulary, and it doesn’t limit you to simple ideas. It means writing in a straightforward manner, using words that precisely express what you want to say, without the reader needing to fall back on allusion or guesswork.
If an idea is complex, then there may be no simple words to express it. That’s fine. However, dressing up simple ideas with complex words is not. That’s just deception.
Orwell was in favour of simple, direct language. Newspeak was insidious because it obscured meaning and eliminated expressiveness. Complex language can do the same, and Orwell was well aware if this. In “Politics and the English Language”, he railed against "pretentious diction" and "meaningless words". These, he said, were used to make biases look impartial and to obscure the point of a statement.
Orwell’s six rules of precise writing stand today. In summary: 1. Avoid overused metaphors, simile, or other figures of speech. They have likely lost any precise meaning; 2. Never use a long word where a short one will do; 3. If it is possible to cut a word out, always cut it out; 4. Never use the passive where you can use the active; 5. Never use a foreign phrase, a scientific word, or a jargon word if you can think of a precise everyday English equivalent; 6. Break any of these rules sooner than say anything outright barbarous.
If an idea is complex, then there may be no simple words to express it. That’s fine. However, dressing up simple ideas with complex words is not. That’s just deception.
Orwell was in favour of simple, direct language. Newspeak was insidious because it obscured meaning and eliminated expressiveness. Complex language can do the same, and Orwell was well aware if this. In “Politics and the English Language”, he railed against "pretentious diction" and "meaningless words". These, he said, were used to make biases look impartial and to obscure the point of a statement.
Orwell’s six rules of precise writing stand today. In summary: 1. Avoid overused metaphors, simile, or other figures of speech. They have likely lost any precise meaning; 2. Never use a long word where a short one will do; 3. If it is possible to cut a word out, always cut it out; 4. Never use the passive where you can use the active; 5. Never use a foreign phrase, a scientific word, or a jargon word if you can think of a precise everyday English equivalent; 6. Break any of these rules sooner than say anything outright barbarous.
Am I the only one not very fond of this style of writing? It's the constant pauses and hiccups that I'm reading. Four paragraphs into it, and I still don't get a lot of information about what the author is trying to convey.
In good essays, the first and last sentence in a paragraph are often enough to summarize the points. It helps set the context, and makes it much easier for the reader to make a mental map of the overall idea. In this article, its "hiccup" style of writing makes it much harder to build a mental map. You can't predict where it will go until you fully read the sentence.
I usually enjoy reading most of PG essays. For this one, I don't enjoy reading it, and I stopped reading after paragraph 4.
In good essays, the first and last sentence in a paragraph are often enough to summarize the points. It helps set the context, and makes it much easier for the reader to make a mental map of the overall idea. In this article, its "hiccup" style of writing makes it much harder to build a mental map. You can't predict where it will go until you fully read the sentence.
I usually enjoy reading most of PG essays. For this one, I don't enjoy reading it, and I stopped reading after paragraph 4.
> This sentence has five words. Here are five more words. Five-word sentences are fine. But several together become monotonous. Listen to what is happening. The writing is getting boring. The sound of it drones. It’s like a stuck record. The ear demands some variety. Now listen. I vary the sentence length, and I create music. Music. The writing sings. It has a pleasant rhythm, a lilt, a harmony. I use short sentences. And I use sentences of medium length. And sometimes, when I am certain the reader is rested, I will engage him with a sentence of considerable length, a sentence that burns with energy and builds with all the impetus of a crescendo, the roll of the drums, the crash of the cymbals–sounds that say listen to this, it is important.
Gary Provost.
Gary Provost.
Do you have a source for this? I mean besides the author’s name. I’d love to read more about that. I’ve recently start taking my writing seriously, but I feel like this is what I’m tending towards if I’m not careful.
It's from "100 Ways To Improve Your Writing", I believe.
It's full of decent advice. Some bad. Some good. Some that is insightful in ways you might never have thought of by yourself.
Good luck.
It's full of decent advice. Some bad. Some good. Some that is insightful in ways you might never have thought of by yourself.
Good luck.
Excellent.
I have to agree there was something off with the tempo of this essay. There were too many too short paragraphs.
It feels like this particular essay has much shorter sentences and much shorter paragraphs. And it does stick out uncomfortably to me a bit to me as well.
On the general point of shorter sentences, I've found it to be an excellent first approximation rule. Follow it religiously if you're new to making your writing reader-friendly. Later on ... keep following it. But allow your discretion to override it sometimes.
On the general point of shorter sentences, I've found it to be an excellent first approximation rule. Follow it religiously if you're new to making your writing reader-friendly. Later on ... keep following it. But allow your discretion to override it sometimes.
I normally have a very hard time reading his essays.
Could you elaborate?
FWIW, it's unclear what you mean. "Normally" as in "usually, but not this one" or "usually, and this one too"? Two exact opposites, and in just one sentence you managed to be maximally ambiguous. If done on purpose, that's a skill. But, without intending to offend, I think you just don't realize how hard simple writing actually is. I think he succeeded in it very well.
FWIW, it's unclear what you mean. "Normally" as in "usually, but not this one" or "usually, and this one too"? Two exact opposites, and in just one sentence you managed to be maximally ambiguous. If done on purpose, that's a skill. But, without intending to offend, I think you just don't realize how hard simple writing actually is. I think he succeeded in it very well.
He usually has a hard time reading his essays. I don't think he was making a statement on this particular one.
He used to have a hard time reading his essays. He still does. But he used to, too.
yes, I often find PGs essays too wordy and there's a lot of reading to be done for whatever point/s are being made. I often just start skimming to try and see if I can get to the meat of the essay. This one was actually quite short.
also, hot tip for HNers, though I'm pretty sure this is what a lot of us do anyways, just read the comments first, you tend to get a summary in a few lines on nearly everything that is posted on HN, then you can choose whether you actually want to read the the original post.
Couldn't agree more - most pieces of writing, especially in the workplace, should optimally have a VERY brief summary introduction, and the complete version should be succinct, but not to the point of
as if
a robot
wrote
it
because it's very
jarring to
read
kind of
like this
as if
a robot
wrote
it
because it's very
jarring to
read
kind of
like this
Aha - permission to write some incomplete sentences. Thanks!
Aha! Permission to include incomplete, albeit clear, sentences. Thanks!
Whereas I have no opinion about PGs style of writing, I do however wish he'd push out that table width from 435 to something between 700-800, for readability.
Sometimes, it's not just about the words, but the layout also.
Sometimes, it's not just about the words, but the layout also.
Write like you talk.
Read your writing aloud.
Great writing is rewriting.
Keep it simple.
Read your writing aloud.
Great writing is rewriting.
Keep it simple.
Wow - I though the highest comment would just praise pg and his essays. I love his essays.
I think this is "writing too simply", at least for me. PG's essays have hit the sweet spot of delivering the ideas without the words getting in the way. But here, he tried to write even more simply, and destroyed what made his essays attractive. Sure, the words are simple, but the over-simple words are creating an impedance mismatch for delivering the ideas. At least for me.
Maybe hologram should also think about writing more succinctly. He could have gotten across this message in half the words.
I have opinions about writing. So does Mr. Graham.
What our opinions have in common is that they are not falsifiable. Unless we validate our conjectures with empirical evidence, we're really just sharing our taste.
"Oh no," you may say, "I have tested it, and when I write a longer essay, my retweets and upvotes decline." Very well, but the plural of anecdote is not 'data.'
Somewhere else on the Internet, there is someone with poetic, dense writing. When they simplify it, their audience dries up.
Writers and audiences find each other. If you try to measure the effect of your writing using only an audience that has selected your writing voluntarily, you are not measuring your effectiveness, you are measuring the degree to which your writing pleases people who already like your writing.
Absent a properly constructed empirical approach, we might as well be discussing hemlines and necktie widths.
What our opinions have in common is that they are not falsifiable. Unless we validate our conjectures with empirical evidence, we're really just sharing our taste.
"Oh no," you may say, "I have tested it, and when I write a longer essay, my retweets and upvotes decline." Very well, but the plural of anecdote is not 'data.'
Somewhere else on the Internet, there is someone with poetic, dense writing. When they simplify it, their audience dries up.
Writers and audiences find each other. If you try to measure the effect of your writing using only an audience that has selected your writing voluntarily, you are not measuring your effectiveness, you are measuring the degree to which your writing pleases people who already like your writing.
Absent a properly constructed empirical approach, we might as well be discussing hemlines and necktie widths.
Well, yes, style and taste are by definition subjective. In the words of The Big Lebowski, 'That's just, like, your opinion, man!' ;-)
Yo, but real talk, didn’t we all just eat his essay up?
No I really dislike Paul Graham and I find his writing style to be extremely grating. I wouldn't have said anything but you asked. I guess I'm in the minority on this one and I'm a hater in general.
May I ask, what characteristics/qualities you find so grating in his writing?
Like/dislike of writing style is so subjective, just like musical taste, so I can understand if it's not even possible to verbalize why. Perhaps it's just the "tone".
Like/dislike of writing style is so subjective, just like musical taste, so I can understand if it's not even possible to verbalize why. Perhaps it's just the "tone".
For low friction, transfer of ideas, Graham is right. But sometimes sounding like passport application form instructions doesn’t get the right feeling across.
Words have a magic about them, and I don’t think Paul Graham would dispute that.
Words have a magic about them, and I don’t think Paul Graham would dispute that.
Well said.
Many a “writer’s” audience is a majority their mother.
Sure, producers and consumers “find each other” but that’s no where near the end of the story.
You have a flaw in your reasoning here. Not all that is true is falsifiable.
Sure, producers and consumers “find each other” but that’s no where near the end of the story.
You have a flaw in your reasoning here. Not all that is true is falsifiable.
I saw a lot of irony in reading this comment, most of which I did not understand, after reading the OP.
haha so true
[deleted]
There is no empirical evidence that can "validate" a normative claim, except to the extent that such claims rely on empirical priors. You can't squeeze an "ought" from an "is," literally by definition.
The response "this normative opinion is not falsifiable" is just confused—it's like saying "this empirical observation is not good."
The response "this normative opinion is not falsifiable" is just confused—it's like saying "this empirical observation is not good."
I did not read the OP as making normative claims, I read the OP as making claims about things that quite possibly could be measured, provided the author stoped waving his hands and was specific. For example, the opening two sentences:
I try to write using ordinary words and simple sentences. ... That kind of writing is easier to read, and the easier something is to read, the more deeply readers will engage with it.
This is a claim suggesting a cause-and-effect relationship between a certain type of writing and a certain behaviour on the part of people who read the article.
My feeling is that this claim could be falsifiable, provided the OP got specific about what "ordinary words" are, what "simple sentences" are, and what kind of "engagement" we wish to measure.
If he did so, the claim would be falsifiable. And in truth, I'm not going to say that if he did get precise, it would still not be falsifiable. Experience tells me that yes, we can identify cause-and-effect relationships between empirically measurable characteristics of prose and precise engagement metrics.
That is exactly the kind of thing that people do when they try to manufacture "clickbait" headlines.
But he chose to make these claims without being specific, and to me this is what makes it non-falsifiable, but not normative.
JM2C.
I try to write using ordinary words and simple sentences. ... That kind of writing is easier to read, and the easier something is to read, the more deeply readers will engage with it.
This is a claim suggesting a cause-and-effect relationship between a certain type of writing and a certain behaviour on the part of people who read the article.
My feeling is that this claim could be falsifiable, provided the OP got specific about what "ordinary words" are, what "simple sentences" are, and what kind of "engagement" we wish to measure.
If he did so, the claim would be falsifiable. And in truth, I'm not going to say that if he did get precise, it would still not be falsifiable. Experience tells me that yes, we can identify cause-and-effect relationships between empirically measurable characteristics of prose and precise engagement metrics.
That is exactly the kind of thing that people do when they try to manufacture "clickbait" headlines.
But he chose to make these claims without being specific, and to me this is what makes it non-falsifiable, but not normative.
JM2C.
Look, the entire original post of pg's is about 2 KB.
You are suggesting to write a proper paper, backed by proper research.
A paper would of course be useful. But it won't replace the short blurb, which communicates an idea in 2-3 minutes of reading.
You are suggesting to write a proper paper, backed by proper research.
A paper would of course be useful. But it won't replace the short blurb, which communicates an idea in 2-3 minutes of reading.
>a properly constructed empirical approach
I wish there was an A/B testing platform for writers
I wish there was an A/B testing platform for writers
I think Mr. Graham's advice works on essays and usually on non-fiction writing, which he is fairly proficient. It might even work perfectly on genre fiction. But literary fiction is a different beast.
This study isn't dispositive but I think it's reaching towards the sort of empiricism you're looking for.
"If It's Hard to Read, It's Hard to Do: Processing Fluency Affects Effort Prediction and Motivation"
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1467-9280.200...
"If It's Hard to Read, It's Hard to Do: Processing Fluency Affects Effort Prediction and Motivation"
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1467-9280.200...
One thing that tends to offend most tech people I come across:
Data is not the basis of existence. Math itself is nothing but a derived value construct our minds play tricks with. 3 apples is a value system in the mind as we see it, not innately as it sits there.
Thus, when people say "I want data", they are saying to me, "I want a majority thought based on an abstraction of information (math)." You certainly didn't when you (and me and everyone else) were foraging for a nipple/bottle!
Data is not the basis of existence. Math itself is nothing but a derived value construct our minds play tricks with. 3 apples is a value system in the mind as we see it, not innately as it sits there.
Thus, when people say "I want data", they are saying to me, "I want a majority thought based on an abstraction of information (math)." You certainly didn't when you (and me and everyone else) were foraging for a nipple/bottle!
I believe this applies to writing code 100%.
And, if you didn’t notice, using plain English is now a requirement for US government documents and publications. And has been for about 10 years.
https://digital.gov/resources/plain-writing-act-of-2010/
https://digital.gov/resources/plain-writing-act-of-2010/
It's too bad that an article about "simple writing" is so hard to read. It has "simple" words, but it's clunky. Two examples:
"That kind of writing is easier to read, and the easier something is to read, the more deeply readers will engage with it. The less energy they expend on your prose, the more they'll have left for your ideas."
(Why not: "Simple writing makes it easier to engage your ideas.")
"And remember, if you're writing in English, that a lot of your readers won't be native English speakers. Their understanding of ideas may be way ahead of their understanding of English."
(Why not: "Don't make your ideas difficult to understand.")
"That kind of writing is easier to read, and the easier something is to read, the more deeply readers will engage with it. The less energy they expend on your prose, the more they'll have left for your ideas."
(Why not: "Simple writing makes it easier to engage your ideas.")
"And remember, if you're writing in English, that a lot of your readers won't be native English speakers. Their understanding of ideas may be way ahead of their understanding of English."
(Why not: "Don't make your ideas difficult to understand.")
Your examples are plain assertions. "do this."
Paul's are more convincing, even though he doesn't assert anything. He just provides the rationale.
Paul's are more convincing, even though he doesn't assert anything. He just provides the rationale.
"It's too much to hope that writing could ever be pure ideas. You might not even want it to be. But for most writers, most of the time, that's the goal to aim for. The gap between most writing and pure ideas is not filled with poetry."
When I was a teenager I was waiting in the kitchen for my mom to do something. I was in a bad mood and frustrated at having to wait, and and I resigned myself to staring at a bit of artwork my mother had recently put up - one of Andy Warhol's soup cans, and I determined that I would stare at nothing but this stupid picture until I found something interesting about it. After a moment or two I thought that it was interesting how tragic it was that in our society a master artist spent his time illustrating... soup cans.
Even as I was completing the thought, it struck me, like a truck, that this may have been exactly the intended message. That some graphic designer, who might have the soul of an artist, would have to earn a living doing the iconography on a soup can - for no higher purpose than crass commercialism, and even that wouldn't be original, but mass produced by machines and assembly lines - that in our society art itself was subsumed by capitalism.
That was the first moment that I realized art might be more than pretty pictures. In my own home office I have that same picture now. It reminds me of a lot of thoughts - the memory of that realization, striving against creativity enslaved by capitalism, and my own mother.
I bring this up because I think there is some sense in which "poetry" can separate writing from meaning, but there is another way in which poetry, or abstract expression like art, can encode meaning that simple and direct communication cannot hope to.
In college I heard a poem that went "The apparition of these faces in a crowd; petals on a wet, black, bough". I still don't know exactly what that feeling is, but I feel that way from time to time and recite that poem to myself when I do.
Poetry, or art, is inexact, but I think it is a lot closer to the pure idea form of communication. At least when it works.
When I was a teenager I was waiting in the kitchen for my mom to do something. I was in a bad mood and frustrated at having to wait, and and I resigned myself to staring at a bit of artwork my mother had recently put up - one of Andy Warhol's soup cans, and I determined that I would stare at nothing but this stupid picture until I found something interesting about it. After a moment or two I thought that it was interesting how tragic it was that in our society a master artist spent his time illustrating... soup cans.
Even as I was completing the thought, it struck me, like a truck, that this may have been exactly the intended message. That some graphic designer, who might have the soul of an artist, would have to earn a living doing the iconography on a soup can - for no higher purpose than crass commercialism, and even that wouldn't be original, but mass produced by machines and assembly lines - that in our society art itself was subsumed by capitalism.
That was the first moment that I realized art might be more than pretty pictures. In my own home office I have that same picture now. It reminds me of a lot of thoughts - the memory of that realization, striving against creativity enslaved by capitalism, and my own mother.
I bring this up because I think there is some sense in which "poetry" can separate writing from meaning, but there is another way in which poetry, or abstract expression like art, can encode meaning that simple and direct communication cannot hope to.
In college I heard a poem that went "The apparition of these faces in a crowd; petals on a wet, black, bough". I still don't know exactly what that feeling is, but I feel that way from time to time and recite that poem to myself when I do.
Poetry, or art, is inexact, but I think it is a lot closer to the pure idea form of communication. At least when it works.
Sometimes writing less simple is beneficial when intentional. Know your audience. Less simple writing alienates people. If you wish to preference a particular segment of the general population only, this is one way to do it.
The benefit of that is less noise. A problem in that is some people will get angry and blame you with hostility if they feel stupid and cannot follow the writing.
The benefit of that is less noise. A problem in that is some people will get angry and blame you with hostility if they feel stupid and cannot follow the writing.
Reading Paul Graham's "essays" is inspiring, because, the more of his writing that I read, the more I realize that basically anybody can be a multimillionaire.
> When you write in a fancy way to impress people, you're making them do extra work just so you can seem cool.
Here’s a challenge: Communicate without the word “just” (as in “only”). Every time I write the word “just”, I find that there is a level of snarkiness behind it, as in this example.
~Just~ Avoid it.
Here’s a challenge: Communicate without the word “just” (as in “only”). Every time I write the word “just”, I find that there is a level of snarkiness behind it, as in this example.
~Just~ Avoid it.
I used to think rhetorical devices were just ways to sound fancy, but they can be effective tools for transferring emotion or conveying nuanced concepts from author to reader.
E.g., analogy can be more efficient at this than plain description.
E.g., analogy can be more efficient at this than plain description.
The simple style of writing works when the reading is functional in nature: people read Paul Graham essays because they think it’s an instructional manual for getting rich, so the appropriate style is the same as an instruction manual for assembling a coffee table.
For other readers’ goals, other styles are more appropriate.
For other readers’ goals, other styles are more appropriate.
[deleted]
Simply is not depth, but breadth.
Write truly, not simply.
“The great thing is to last and get your work done and see and hear and learn and understand; and write when there is something that you know; and not before; and not too damned much after.”
- Ernest Hemingway, Death In The Afternoon
Write truly, not simply.
“The great thing is to last and get your work done and see and hear and learn and understand; and write when there is something that you know; and not before; and not too damned much after.”
- Ernest Hemingway, Death In The Afternoon
He’s too respected at this point for anyone to correct him or give effective feedback..
For me, this is one of those things where the distributions have different skew. I think the median example of less simple writing is indeed worse than the median example of simple writing, but that the graphs cross at some point to the right of that, such that better examples of less simple writing are better than better examples of simple writing, and great examples of less simple writing are much better than great examples of simple writing. (I recognize that this is all subjective, but this is how I think about it.)
The genre also matters a lot. For sure I think simple writing is the better choice for Graham's topics, but I think it's much more open for fictional writing, and that some kinds of non fiction essays also benefit from less simplicity (again, keeping in mind the distribution effect discussed above).
For instance, one of my favorite essays is David Foster Wallace's "This Is Water". It is not simple, but it is much more effective than an essay using simple language to make the point that we often don't realize the things that we are immersed in. But I come across examples of this by good writers who do not usually use simple language who I believe are usually more compelling than writers like Graham.
The genre also matters a lot. For sure I think simple writing is the better choice for Graham's topics, but I think it's much more open for fictional writing, and that some kinds of non fiction essays also benefit from less simplicity (again, keeping in mind the distribution effect discussed above).
For instance, one of my favorite essays is David Foster Wallace's "This Is Water". It is not simple, but it is much more effective than an essay using simple language to make the point that we often don't realize the things that we are immersed in. But I come across examples of this by good writers who do not usually use simple language who I believe are usually more compelling than writers like Graham.
Kurt Vonnegut wrote simply. He did this to create a feeling of being a lost child in a lost world (Billy Pilgrim, Slaughterhouse 5 for example.)
On the other hand, arguable the greatest sentence in the English language, the opening paragraph from Moby Dick is not written simply, yet Melville makes it flow.
"Call me Ishmael. Some years ago - never mind how long precisely - having little or no money in my purse, and nothing particular to interest me on shore, I thought I would sail about a little and see the watery part of the world. It is a way I have of driving off the spleen, and regulating circulation. Whenever I find myself growing grim about the mouth; whenever it is a damp, drizzly November in my soul; whenever I find myself involuntarily pausing before coffin warehouses, and bringing up the rear of every funeral I meet; and especially whenever my hypos get such an upper hand of me, that it requires a strong moral principle to prevent me from deliberately stepping into the street, and methodologically knocking people's hats off - then, I account it high time to get to sea as soon as I can. This is my substitute for pistol and ball... I quietly take to the ship. There is nothing surprising in this. If they but knew it, almost all men in their degree, some time or other, cherish very nearly the same feelings towards the ocean with me."
Vonnegut and Melville were great writers. Paul Graham is a great programmer turned businessman who likes to dabble at writing.
On the other hand, arguable the greatest sentence in the English language, the opening paragraph from Moby Dick is not written simply, yet Melville makes it flow.
"Call me Ishmael. Some years ago - never mind how long precisely - having little or no money in my purse, and nothing particular to interest me on shore, I thought I would sail about a little and see the watery part of the world. It is a way I have of driving off the spleen, and regulating circulation. Whenever I find myself growing grim about the mouth; whenever it is a damp, drizzly November in my soul; whenever I find myself involuntarily pausing before coffin warehouses, and bringing up the rear of every funeral I meet; and especially whenever my hypos get such an upper hand of me, that it requires a strong moral principle to prevent me from deliberately stepping into the street, and methodologically knocking people's hats off - then, I account it high time to get to sea as soon as I can. This is my substitute for pistol and ball... I quietly take to the ship. There is nothing surprising in this. If they but knew it, almost all men in their degree, some time or other, cherish very nearly the same feelings towards the ocean with me."
Vonnegut and Melville were great writers. Paul Graham is a great programmer turned businessman who likes to dabble at writing.
How much of simplicity is similar history?
I wish this idea would make it to research papers.
Instead of large words and greek symbols, possibly simplicity and compilable code.
Instead of large words and greek symbols, possibly simplicity and compilable code.
"Short words are best and the old words when short are best of all." W. Chuchill
On this subject I tend to defer to Orwell's https://www.orwellfoundation.com/the-orwell-foundation/orwel... (avoiding bad metaphors and canned phrases), and Samuelson's rules for legal writing: https://people.ischool.berkeley.edu/~pam/papers/goodwriting....
Especially the latter's "have a point" and "get to the point".
Especially the latter's "have a point" and "get to the point".
I think it depends on the subject. Especially non-fiction writing might feel bland if written in simple words. You need to dramatize few things to make the reader think.
I too thought this was the better way to write.
To write simply, in the way that Paul suggests here, and in the way most editorial softwares these days try to suggest/auto-correct our writings (gmail, grammarly, hemingway app etc).
That is until I found a guy called Alexander Cortes, a personal trainer selling fitness programs online.
His writing style and the philosophy behind is the exact opposite of the ideas above.
When I subscribed to his newsletter (read by many thousands) I was impressed with his style. It has typos, no punctuation and no writing order/rules of any kind that you might've got used to. But you can still read and fully comprehend it. Otherwise that many people wouldn't be following him (100K twitter followers: @AJA_Cortes). It's unique and makes his writing stand out from all the writers following same writing advice from the mainstream writing advice (which is similar to what Paul says in the article).
In this tweet thread Alexnder talks about his writing style [1]. Here's two posts from his blog [2] and [3] that I like and shows the style.
[1] https://twitter.com/AJA_Cortes/status/1250356145316712449 [2] https://cortes.site/the-protocol-for-rehabbing-a-bad-shoulde... [3] https://cortes.site/the-tao-of-bro/
To write simply, in the way that Paul suggests here, and in the way most editorial softwares these days try to suggest/auto-correct our writings (gmail, grammarly, hemingway app etc).
That is until I found a guy called Alexander Cortes, a personal trainer selling fitness programs online.
His writing style and the philosophy behind is the exact opposite of the ideas above.
When I subscribed to his newsletter (read by many thousands) I was impressed with his style. It has typos, no punctuation and no writing order/rules of any kind that you might've got used to. But you can still read and fully comprehend it. Otherwise that many people wouldn't be following him (100K twitter followers: @AJA_Cortes). It's unique and makes his writing stand out from all the writers following same writing advice from the mainstream writing advice (which is similar to what Paul says in the article).
In this tweet thread Alexnder talks about his writing style [1]. Here's two posts from his blog [2] and [3] that I like and shows the style.
[1] https://twitter.com/AJA_Cortes/status/1250356145316712449 [2] https://cortes.site/the-protocol-for-rehabbing-a-bad-shoulde... [3] https://cortes.site/the-tao-of-bro/
I doubt you can 'fully comprehend it'. Folks peddling new-age advice thrive on misunderstanding. They get more folks interested if they don't exactly say what they're saying. Everybody has a different interpretation of bad writing. That's why its bad.
I agree with Paul. I tend to pick the simplest language that works. However, it largely depends on who you write for.
On my website [1], I write for immigrants. I pick simple words, and I write simple sentences. I avoid idioms, rare words, and expressions. It's not very interesting to read, but it's easy to understand.
When I'm among fluent speakers, I'll pepper my sentences with idioms, and generally be more expressive. It's more fun to write that way, because I can pour some of myself into my writing. That's how I write most comments and blog posts.
However, one must be cautious as not to overdo it, and in the process alienate the reader with needlessly elongated prose. Though this writing style is entirely too common in academia - particularly in the philosophy department - it serves little more than to prove how full of himself writer is. Perhaps it is believed that this is how intelligent people express themselves, but the reader's energy is better spent on the underlying ideas than on the deciphering of each sentence.
[1] Typical example: https://allaboutberlin.com/guides/german-health-insurance
On my website [1], I write for immigrants. I pick simple words, and I write simple sentences. I avoid idioms, rare words, and expressions. It's not very interesting to read, but it's easy to understand.
When I'm among fluent speakers, I'll pepper my sentences with idioms, and generally be more expressive. It's more fun to write that way, because I can pour some of myself into my writing. That's how I write most comments and blog posts.
However, one must be cautious as not to overdo it, and in the process alienate the reader with needlessly elongated prose. Though this writing style is entirely too common in academia - particularly in the philosophy department - it serves little more than to prove how full of himself writer is. Perhaps it is believed that this is how intelligent people express themselves, but the reader's energy is better spent on the underlying ideas than on the deciphering of each sentence.
[1] Typical example: https://allaboutberlin.com/guides/german-health-insurance
PG needs to do more than writing so he has something to write about. His essays were better when he had something uniquely insightful to say.
[deleted]
An alternative POV: https://whatiscalledthinking.substack.com/p/is-precise-langu...
That's a great point.