On Writing Well(zodvik.com)
zodvik.com
On Writing Well
https://zodvik.com/posts/on-writing-well/
41 comments
Author here. TIL about the book.
For reference https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/53343.On_Writing_Well
For reference https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/53343.On_Writing_Well
I thought the same. Zinsser’s classic changed the way I perceived writing.
Zinsser’s book is great. I’d also recommend Stephen King’s ‘On Writing: A memoir of the craft’. A shorter, easier read, shares a lot of topics.
I'd add "don't use demonstratives, like 'this' and 'that', repeat the clause". Sometimes, "that" is ambiguous, leading to unclear writing.
E.g. "The foo program is running on the bar server. Who is in charge of that?" vs "The foo program is running on the bar server. Who is in charge of the bar server?"
E.g. "The foo program is running on the bar server. Who is in charge of that?" vs "The foo program is running on the bar server. Who is in charge of the bar server?"
Some times, the writers don't want to repeat themselves because they were taught that it's "poor writing." And I'd agree, maybe, in (some) prose.
But in tech docs, please, repeat yourself instead of using "this", "that", "those", etc., even when perfectly non-ambiguous.
This should be preferred "The service is now ready. To check the service's status, ..." over this "The service is now ready. To check its status, ..."
But in tech docs, please, repeat yourself instead of using "this", "that", "those", etc., even when perfectly non-ambiguous.
This should be preferred "The service is now ready. To check the service's status, ..." over this "The service is now ready. To check its status, ..."
> the writers don't want to repeat themselves because they were taught that it's "poor writing."
Yes! As you say, it massively depends on whether you are writing fiction or non-fiction. In any sort of formal document, especially technical reports, etc, the reader should never have to spend time working out what the author means. I used to be a doc reviewer in a previous life, and lost count of the number of times docs used different terms to mean the same thing, especially where multiple authors were involved, or a single author was writing different sections at different times.
General plea: If you value your readers, please, please get someone else to check a doc to look for these sorts of problems. If multiple authors are involved, always get someone on the team (a lead author?) to do this check even before submitting it for formal review.
Yes! As you say, it massively depends on whether you are writing fiction or non-fiction. In any sort of formal document, especially technical reports, etc, the reader should never have to spend time working out what the author means. I used to be a doc reviewer in a previous life, and lost count of the number of times docs used different terms to mean the same thing, especially where multiple authors were involved, or a single author was writing different sections at different times.
General plea: If you value your readers, please, please get someone else to check a doc to look for these sorts of problems. If multiple authors are involved, always get someone on the team (a lead author?) to do this check even before submitting it for formal review.
I found your last paragraph entirely unambiguous at all three levels, which led me to disgree with your overall point. Before that I was with you!
The benefit of "The service is now ready. To check the service's status, ..."
Is when someone needs to amend this sentence later, e.g. inserting another point:
"The service is now ready. This means you can query the health endpoint. To check the service's status, ..."
It makes the writing less likely to become ambiguous.
Most documents I see in work will constantly have sentences added/removed as things change.
Is when someone needs to amend this sentence later, e.g. inserting another point:
"The service is now ready. This means you can query the health endpoint. To check the service's status, ..."
It makes the writing less likely to become ambiguous.
Most documents I see in work will constantly have sentences added/removed as things change.
Many 'rules' including this one can be broken if you know the tradeoffs and can make the case-by-case choices correctly. But that was a poor example for motivating a behaviour.
We should write with *pointers.
Yes, 'this' can be really problematic.
There are two problems with using ‘this’: Firstly, there may be ambiguity in what ‘this’ refers to. If a paragraph starts with ‘this means…’ or similar, it is impossible to understand the paragraph without looking back through the text – which of course makes it hard to dip into a text (e.g. especially in non-fiction, where readers may dip in to find some specific fact). Furthermore, any unit of text starting with ‘this’ cannot be copied and pasted somewhere else (e.g. from the main body of a report into the conclusions), where the meaning of ‘this’ is completely lost.
I think the problem sometimes happens because the author is writing in a flow state (they are ‘in the zone’) and is creating text that relates to their current mental model of something. This mental state is of course not accessible to a reader, or perhaps not even to the same author at a later date.
Solutions include getting an independent review by someone who isn’t also involved in the writing process, or if this is impossible, reviewing the text yourself after leaving it alone for a while. The ‘this at the start of a text unit’ problem is analogous to a linting check and doesn’t need to be done by a domain expert.
There are two problems with using ‘this’: Firstly, there may be ambiguity in what ‘this’ refers to. If a paragraph starts with ‘this means…’ or similar, it is impossible to understand the paragraph without looking back through the text – which of course makes it hard to dip into a text (e.g. especially in non-fiction, where readers may dip in to find some specific fact). Furthermore, any unit of text starting with ‘this’ cannot be copied and pasted somewhere else (e.g. from the main body of a report into the conclusions), where the meaning of ‘this’ is completely lost.
I think the problem sometimes happens because the author is writing in a flow state (they are ‘in the zone’) and is creating text that relates to their current mental model of something. This mental state is of course not accessible to a reader, or perhaps not even to the same author at a later date.
Solutions include getting an independent review by someone who isn’t also involved in the writing process, or if this is impossible, reviewing the text yourself after leaving it alone for a while. The ‘this at the start of a text unit’ problem is analogous to a linting check and doesn’t need to be done by a domain expert.
Repeating the clause can be useful, but I don’t think it should be used as a general rule. Avoiding ambiguity does not mean forcing repetition and making dull prose. Example:
> The foo program is running on the bar server. Who is in charge of the latter?
Though in general that¹ is still weak. Depending on the surrounding context (which isn’t present in your comment) and the main idea, a possibly better example:
> Who is in charge of the bar server running the foo program?
Without a real use case, we could spend days discussing what is “better”.
Though yes, removing “that” can improve the text, thought that² doesn’t mean you need to replace it with anything. Let’s take the first paragraph in the article:
> Writing a technical document is surprisingly hard. That is not because of the skill to tell a story. It’s because writing forces a level of clarity that is easy to gloss over while thinking through a topic.
An alternative without any “that”:
> Writing a technical document is surprisingly hard. Not because of the skill required to tell a story, but because writing forces a level of clarity otherwise easy to gloss over while thinking through a topic.
¹ I don’t think there’s any ambiguity the “that” is referring to the previous sentence.
² I don’t think there’s any ambiguity the “that” is referring to improving the text.
> The foo program is running on the bar server. Who is in charge of the latter?
Though in general that¹ is still weak. Depending on the surrounding context (which isn’t present in your comment) and the main idea, a possibly better example:
> Who is in charge of the bar server running the foo program?
Without a real use case, we could spend days discussing what is “better”.
Though yes, removing “that” can improve the text, thought that² doesn’t mean you need to replace it with anything. Let’s take the first paragraph in the article:
> Writing a technical document is surprisingly hard. That is not because of the skill to tell a story. It’s because writing forces a level of clarity that is easy to gloss over while thinking through a topic.
An alternative without any “that”:
> Writing a technical document is surprisingly hard. Not because of the skill required to tell a story, but because writing forces a level of clarity otherwise easy to gloss over while thinking through a topic.
¹ I don’t think there’s any ambiguity the “that” is referring to the previous sentence.
² I don’t think there’s any ambiguity the “that” is referring to improving the text.
I want you to know that¹ I enjoyed reading this comment, more than just an upvote could convey.
¹ ;)
¹ ;)
Another thing worth pointing out is that technical texts are rarely read entirely as a literary piece, so repeating things is a welcome thing. As someone who spends great part of the day reading datasheets it is specially annoying having to scan through the entire piece to see what something means like for example acronyms:
“The setting of these bits is only valid if the BCST bit in FBCSTAT is 1, while the FRDY bit in FSTATR is 1.”
“The setting of these bits is only valid if the BCST bit in FBCSTAT is 1, while the FRDY bit in FSTATR is 1.”
There was another article/blog on hackernews some time ago along the lines of 'I'm an editor, here is how I edit my friends texts' with some really good advice.
Unfortunately I can't find it anymore -- if someone knows which post I mean, I'd appreciate sharing it with me again.
Unfortunately I can't find it anymore -- if someone knows which post I mean, I'd appreciate sharing it with me again.
This one? https://evaparish.com/blog/how-i-edit
I think so, yes, 80% confident. Awesome, thank you!
On Writing Well by Zinsser is my favorite book on nonfiction writing. 10/10 recommend to folks who'd like to work on their writing.
Wanna say me and my friend keep loosing this wonderful book.
For Technical Writing, follow "The Minto Pyramid Principle" (https://untools.co/minto-pyramid/), keep everything Concise, Precise, use Assertive/Definitive voice and show Usage with Examples in the beginning itself.
For anyone interested in the topic, I would recommend reading this article:
https://www.americanscientist.org/blog/the-long-view/the-sci...
https://www.americanscientist.org/blog/the-long-view/the-sci...
Also, get a copy of Strunk & White's "The Elements of Style" and read it often.
Then how does this account for the success or writers who do not write simply or use a more advanced structure or verbosity? I think writing tips are overrated. They don't work as well as assumed or advertised. Simple writing is great if you're writing a brochure or instructional guide, but I don't think it's an iron clad rule for expository writing or creative writing or blog writing. There are too many exceptions. The best writing is that in which the message most aligns with the values of the recipient.
Agreed. The best writing is based on taking into account the subject matter and the intended reading audience. The same is also the case with oratory skills.
For example; as a fan of detective fiction i just love the different language styles of Arthur Conan Doyle, Edgar Allan Poe, G.K.Chesterton, Agatha Christie, Dorothy Sayers, Rex Stout etc. Each is unique and designed for the character being depicted but all are enjoyable.
For example; as a fan of detective fiction i just love the different language styles of Arthur Conan Doyle, Edgar Allan Poe, G.K.Chesterton, Agatha Christie, Dorothy Sayers, Rex Stout etc. Each is unique and designed for the character being depicted but all are enjoyable.
As an engineer who became a founder, I cannot recommend the book enough. Whether you're improving your landing page, writing your pitch deck, reaching out to customers, or developing your company and product strategy, communicating effectively in writing is a very crucial skill.
Invest in improving your writing skills. It will pay dividends in every aspect of your business.
Invest in improving your writing skills. It will pay dividends in every aspect of your business.
The post is not about the book. In fact, as he commented here, he had never heard of the book.
Related book recommendation: "First, You Write a Sentence", by Joe Moran. Even if you're not aspiring to improve your own writing, and you simply love to read, it's really worthwhile.
https://developers.google.com/tech-writing covers the same topics in more detail.
For technical writing, journalism, etc., one can follow the simple rule no adjectives.
For prose, replace all common adjectives by more specific or descriptive one, or even remove them too and describe properties. For example: The F-35 passed by my house. When I heard its sound, the jet had already disappeared at the horizon. (This describes super-sonic speed without an adjective or an overly precise speed number.)
Edit: past perfect based on comment
For prose, replace all common adjectives by more specific or descriptive one, or even remove them too and describe properties. For example: The F-35 passed by my house. When I heard its sound, the jet had already disappeared at the horizon. (This describes super-sonic speed without an adjective or an overly precise speed number.)
Edit: past perfect based on comment
“Had already disappeared” :) if you’re going to give writing advice, try to give examples without missing verbs.
Same applies to the article - it’s riddled with grammar mistakes. “Lot of your readers may not have English as their first language.”
“test platform that let’s anyone run”
Same applies to the article - it’s riddled with grammar mistakes. “Lot of your readers may not have English as their first language.”
“test platform that let’s anyone run”
Yeah, it's surprisingly poorly written for an article about writing well :-/
Reading it reminded me of a book "Writing without bullshit" which adds a few more concepts to what op shared.
Frontloading information is my favorite, where instead of building to the core conclusion you start with it and then expand.
https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/28448362-writing-without...
Frontloading information is my favorite, where instead of building to the core conclusion you start with it and then expand.
https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/28448362-writing-without...
[deleted]
[deleted]
[deleted]
[deleted]
It's been a few years since I've returned to it, but the material in Zinsser's book has been useful to me as an engineer that has to occasionally write for both fellow engineers and non-technical folks. I would recommend Zinsser's book if you like the content in the article and wouldn't mind a bit more.