Writing: A misunderstood activity(solimanwrites.com)
solimanwrites.com
Writing: A misunderstood activity
https://www.solimanwrites.com/writing-the-most-misunderstood-activity/
65 comments
I believe this article is targeted at those who are not as comfortable with writing - those people who jump on a call for anything, and want to learn to use async communication more. It sounds like the author is starting to explore that territory. Whereas people like me used to hang around IRC while doing homework and write entire blog posts while half asleep in bed. We're not the ones who simply write while not told to. We have to tell ourselves to stop writing and listen/read more.
If you're looking for a job at a company that highly values writing, please send me your resume! cweber [at] thelabnyc [dot] com.
We're a digital agency based in NYC, looking to hire a Sr. level engineer either on-site or remote within the US. Over the past few years we've really gotten serious about technical writing, especially around requirements gathering/documentation. We now strive to treat documentation as just as important as code—meaning a feature's requirements get written and code-reviewed via merge request _before_ implementation work begins.
So, if you're looking for a place that asynchronous discussion and written communication, you'd fit right in.
We're a digital agency based in NYC, looking to hire a Sr. level engineer either on-site or remote within the US. Over the past few years we've really gotten serious about technical writing, especially around requirements gathering/documentation. We now strive to treat documentation as just as important as code—meaning a feature's requirements get written and code-reviewed via merge request _before_ implementation work begins.
So, if you're looking for a place that asynchronous discussion and written communication, you'd fit right in.
The most-deflating response to a thoughtfully-written email that lays out a clear set of strategic choices is the immediate TL;DR of the business world: can we schedule a quick call to make sure we're all on the same page about this? What's a good time for you?
I think you shouldn't be too deflated about this. For many decisions, a sync session is necessary (whether it's a group review or a team call). The biggest benefit of a good writing culture is to turn five open-ended time-consuming group calls into a couple of well-written emails, and a final decision call with a clear agenda.
A decisive decision-session is great. An I-didn't-bother-reading-your-email-so-please-spend-an-extra-30m-explaining-it session is less so.
I fantasize of just printing out my emails and reading them in a monotone
So tiring to get those responses. My old company was forced to go remote when the pandemic hit and the anxiety that the founder had about remote resulted in meetings about meetings to prepare everyone for the meetings.
Everyone has different learning styles, some conversations are definitely better in real-time and in-person but the default behavior being refusing to read an email longer than 3 sentences is rough.
Everyone has different learning styles, some conversations are definitely better in real-time and in-person but the default behavior being refusing to read an email longer than 3 sentences is rough.
The default behaviour being an assumption that anybody who has any questions, thinks a back and forth would be beneficial or possibly even wants to arrive at a decision democratically is a dullard who didn't even bother to absorb the perfectly clear, indisputable and comprehensive final word on the matter that is their original email is pretty rough too though.
I guess sometimes people who [rightly or wrongly] think a strategic decision isn't worth 30 minutes of their time find it easier to suggest the other person is the one who's not putting the effort into it...
I guess sometimes people who [rightly or wrongly] think a strategic decision isn't worth 30 minutes of their time find it easier to suggest the other person is the one who's not putting the effort into it...
This feels like an odd assumption to make about my comment. I don't think all meetings are a waste of time and I certainly don't think people with different work preferences than me are dullards.
My experience has been heavy on people who skip reading in favor of a meeting even when the reading is to provide historical context, summarize learnings, and present what we know about a situation. Not reading turns what should have been a productive, forward looking discussion into a meeting rehashing old information for the folks who didn't do their homework.
In my professional life, I've encountered far more people who prefer to have meetings that could have been emails than I have people who think a strategic decision isn't worth 30 minutes of time for a discussion but perhaps my use of "default behavior" was a bit strong.
I suspect the meeting-heavy cultures and aversion to reading I've encountered are largely driven by discomfort with writing, not reading which is where articles like this one could add some value.
My experience has been heavy on people who skip reading in favor of a meeting even when the reading is to provide historical context, summarize learnings, and present what we know about a situation. Not reading turns what should have been a productive, forward looking discussion into a meeting rehashing old information for the folks who didn't do their homework.
In my professional life, I've encountered far more people who prefer to have meetings that could have been emails than I have people who think a strategic decision isn't worth 30 minutes of time for a discussion but perhaps my use of "default behavior" was a bit strong.
I suspect the meeting-heavy cultures and aversion to reading I've encountered are largely driven by discomfort with writing, not reading which is where articles like this one could add some value.
> This feels like an odd assumption to make about my comment.
I mean, "refuse to read more than 3 sentences" (or "the TLDR of the business world" and "I-didn't-bother-reading-your-email-so-please-spend-an-extra-30m-explaining-it session is less so" in others' comments in the same subthread) seems like unrealistic as well as incredibly uncharitable assumptions to make about people's general motivations for requesting followup calls. Especially if the subject matter of the original email was something as non-trivial as "a clear set of strategic choices"
Indeed, if it ends up actually taking 30 minutes to explain an email, it's obvious both that the other person is putting far more time and effort into the call than they would have done into scanning the email text, and that the email itself couldn't possibly have communicated all the information the caller [felt that they] needed to know in sufficient detail.
Which doesn't guarantee that the "quick call" was actually a productive use of time, or that the caller's questions are particularly good ones or that the caller couldn't have included followup questions in their reply, but if somebody can't think of any reason why colleagues receiving their email would call for clarification other than lack of interest in reading, there's a decent chance it's not [just] the colleagues with the communication problems. Even if the colleagues don't have additional information to add and seem fixated on something which point 11b was supposed to rule out.
Sure, as the number of people in a group meeting grows the probability someone hasn't read (or has read and has completely forgotten) the meeting prep notes approaches 1, but that's a separate issue from people receiving an email and calling for one-to-one clarification.
I mean, "refuse to read more than 3 sentences" (or "the TLDR of the business world" and "I-didn't-bother-reading-your-email-so-please-spend-an-extra-30m-explaining-it session is less so" in others' comments in the same subthread) seems like unrealistic as well as incredibly uncharitable assumptions to make about people's general motivations for requesting followup calls. Especially if the subject matter of the original email was something as non-trivial as "a clear set of strategic choices"
Indeed, if it ends up actually taking 30 minutes to explain an email, it's obvious both that the other person is putting far more time and effort into the call than they would have done into scanning the email text, and that the email itself couldn't possibly have communicated all the information the caller [felt that they] needed to know in sufficient detail.
Which doesn't guarantee that the "quick call" was actually a productive use of time, or that the caller's questions are particularly good ones or that the caller couldn't have included followup questions in their reply, but if somebody can't think of any reason why colleagues receiving their email would call for clarification other than lack of interest in reading, there's a decent chance it's not [just] the colleagues with the communication problems. Even if the colleagues don't have additional information to add and seem fixated on something which point 11b was supposed to rule out.
Sure, as the number of people in a group meeting grows the probability someone hasn't read (or has read and has completely forgotten) the meeting prep notes approaches 1, but that's a separate issue from people receiving an email and calling for one-to-one clarification.
Have you entertained the possibility that we can tell, in said call, that the person who immediately requested the call needs the email explained to them (or asks multiple questions recapitulating the basics of the email) before they can contribute?
I'm not complaining about people asking questions to clarify or build on their understanding of the email. (Or even a lack of understanding; it's hard to build enough shared context to communicate well.)
You're the one here uncharitably projecting the assumption that we're punishing people for asking reasonable questions about something they made an effort to read.
I'm not complaining about people asking questions to clarify or build on their understanding of the email. (Or even a lack of understanding; it's hard to build enough shared context to communicate well.)
You're the one here uncharitably projecting the assumption that we're punishing people for asking reasonable questions about something they made an effort to read.
I don't think it's uncharitable to assume that when someone writes that a generic type of request for synchronous communication is the "TLDR of the business world" which is "deflating" to receive after laying out a "clear set of strategic choices" in writing, their objection is to what they said they objected to (receiving an email asking for a call to discuss strategic choices after writing an email they believe to fully cover them), not the ignorant nature of specific questions not asked in that email.
But hey, maybe the brief text summary you wrote didn't encapsulate every nuance of your thoughts on the issue and any particularly bad habits specific colleagues of yours may have. I guess you don't want a call to clarify it ;-)
But hey, maybe the brief text summary you wrote didn't encapsulate every nuance of your thoughts on the issue and any particularly bad habits specific colleagues of yours may have. I guess you don't want a call to clarify it ;-)
You keep leaving out a key word:
> The most-deflating response ... is the immediate TL;DR of the business world ...
So, here we are, having a text-call to clarify your comprehension of something you actually read (if uncharitably). Because I can tell you bothered to read it (and it bothered you enough to comment).
If I could tell you hadn't bothered to read it--then yes, I wouldn't want to clarify it.
> The most-deflating response ... is the immediate TL;DR of the business world ...
So, here we are, having a text-call to clarify your comprehension of something you actually read (if uncharitably). Because I can tell you bothered to read it (and it bothered you enough to comment).
If I could tell you hadn't bothered to read it--then yes, I wouldn't want to clarify it.
Even if a response is so immediate the recipient can't possibly have had time to parse more than the topic, I'd still regard it as more than a little paranoid to conclude that the most likely purpose for anyone scheduling [more] time in future to speak to you on that specific matter is to avoid the effort of reading what you've written. Unless you're in the habit of mailing people the manual instead of the bullet points they asked for.
Ultimately most people who don't want to take the time to read someone's email properly don't reply to schedule a followup action that will take even more time, they hit mark as read and move on. People who genuinely value others opinions (or want to be seen to) are going to want a followup call anyway, so they might as well pre-arrange it before they've had chance to sit down and read every paragraph and check out your links. Especially if they're also in the habit of insta-replies to avoid "about the email sent 30 minutes ago..." chasers from other people. Sure, it's not impossible their reaction to receiving an email from you is completely irrational dislike of reading well-structured and clear prose, but then they're the one soliciting more explanation rather than being deflated about followup.
Ultimately most people who don't want to take the time to read someone's email properly don't reply to schedule a followup action that will take even more time, they hit mark as read and move on. People who genuinely value others opinions (or want to be seen to) are going to want a followup call anyway, so they might as well pre-arrange it before they've had chance to sit down and read every paragraph and check out your links. Especially if they're also in the habit of insta-replies to avoid "about the email sent 30 minutes ago..." chasers from other people. Sure, it's not impossible their reaction to receiving an email from you is completely irrational dislike of reading well-structured and clear prose, but then they're the one soliciting more explanation rather than being deflated about followup.
Thanks for explaining my life to me.
I am glad you know that I don't really have people schedule meetings right after getting an email in which I (and others) have to explain the content of said email before we can do anything productive.
Now that I know everyone who schedules a meeting to have someone explain an email to them actually read and understood the email it makes total sense that they ask questions that betray a complete lack of knowledge of anything beyond the general topic.
I would expect someone who read the email to be able to form a question that builds on or slices into some concern the email addressed, but now I know that feigning ignorance is just their way of showing how much they appreciate my time and opinions.
My life is materially improved. Thanks!
I am glad you know that I don't really have people schedule meetings right after getting an email in which I (and others) have to explain the content of said email before we can do anything productive.
Now that I know everyone who schedules a meeting to have someone explain an email to them actually read and understood the email it makes total sense that they ask questions that betray a complete lack of knowledge of anything beyond the general topic.
I would expect someone who read the email to be able to form a question that builds on or slices into some concern the email addressed, but now I know that feigning ignorance is just their way of showing how much they appreciate my time and opinions.
My life is materially improved. Thanks!
I assume that response wasn't intended to convince me I was entirely mistaken in considering the possibility that you (and others) would ever jump to the wrong conclusions about people's intentions, but I hope you found the experience of writing it cathartic anyway.
I agree
[deleted]
I remember an English professor who I considered an extremely talented writer. He said, “you think I’m talented because you never had to suffer through the dozens of unreadable drafts that my editor had to.”
Later on, I started working with an editor and sure enough, the editor had to suffer through unreadable drafts but the end reader had no idea how incompetent I was. They could be excused for thinking I have a bit of talent when in reality, I just found someone with enough patience to massage my crap.
So I would add in a number four. Yes, it’s important to write. But having a good editor who can see through all the crap you’ve internalized and who can help you deliver the right words?? That’s just about priceless…
Later on, I started working with an editor and sure enough, the editor had to suffer through unreadable drafts but the end reader had no idea how incompetent I was. They could be excused for thinking I have a bit of talent when in reality, I just found someone with enough patience to massage my crap.
So I would add in a number four. Yes, it’s important to write. But having a good editor who can see through all the crap you’ve internalized and who can help you deliver the right words?? That’s just about priceless…
Very true, but it's not easy (or cheap) to find a good editor. There was a Launch HN recently on this very topic I believe.
But, one can learn to be their own editor. It's not easy, it's unnatural, and it's not as good as an external editor, but it's better than nothing. The trick is to change the point of view, walk in the shoes of the reader.
But, one can learn to be their own editor. It's not easy, it's unnatural, and it's not as good as an external editor, but it's better than nothing. The trick is to change the point of view, walk in the shoes of the reader.
Another trick is to wait. First write the post or email, then leave it alone for a while. This makes it easier to change the point of view.
Somehow I also often find it easier to see possible improvements after I published something. I often edit when possible after posting. It is annoying, but it does have the some effect. Or if I write markdown, render it in some nice formatted view - that also helps to distance a bit.
Somehow I also often find it easier to see possible improvements after I published something. I often edit when possible after posting. It is annoying, but it does have the some effect. Or if I write markdown, render it in some nice formatted view - that also helps to distance a bit.
I think it's important for any writer to subject their work to an editor at least once in their lives. No amount of self-directed practice and learning is likely to beat what you find out about your writing by having a whole other brain take a critical look.
Foster had their Launch HN recently to provide on-demand editing https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31850439
That's very true and correct. An editor at help, makes things more clearer. It's clear and clean...
How did you find an editor? Do you pay them or do they work pro bono?
Funny (and costly) story. My friend Stacey and I started a magazine. Midway through working on the first issue, we realized that we didn’t know a thing about publishing. So, we recruited a third co-founder.
That magazine eventually failed but I was hooked. I started paying her to help me and when her life got too busy, I started paying other editors.
Once I worked with one, I knew exactly what I was looking for so it’s been easy finding editors since. Without that experience, it would have been a lot of trial and error. For example, I can write very quickly. Because of this, I write far better when I work with an editor who really tears my work apart. If an editor sugar coats too much, draft+1 often ends up worse. But if they’re direct and try to hurt my feelings, draft+1 will be closer.
That magazine eventually failed but I was hooked. I started paying her to help me and when her life got too busy, I started paying other editors.
Once I worked with one, I knew exactly what I was looking for so it’s been easy finding editors since. Without that experience, it would have been a lot of trial and error. For example, I can write very quickly. Because of this, I write far better when I work with an editor who really tears my work apart. If an editor sugar coats too much, draft+1 often ends up worse. But if they’re direct and try to hurt my feelings, draft+1 will be closer.
What was your magazine about?
This models a good amount of reflection and humility. It's hard to take a rough critique. At least when it comes to code, there's an ultimate ~deterministic oracle (and style concerns can be respected or dismissed).
I vaguely thought I had a good bi-directional editor<->poet friendship during undergrad, but it fell apart over some personal issues. We've reconnected, but I ~lost my muse in the meantime.
I've also wondered a little if it'd be worth trying to form something on the spectrum from a little editor dyad to a tetrad for technical blogging.
This models a good amount of reflection and humility. It's hard to take a rough critique. At least when it comes to code, there's an ultimate ~deterministic oracle (and style concerns can be respected or dismissed).
I vaguely thought I had a good bi-directional editor<->poet friendship during undergrad, but it fell apart over some personal issues. We've reconnected, but I ~lost my muse in the meantime.
I've also wondered a little if it'd be worth trying to form something on the spectrum from a little editor dyad to a tetrad for technical blogging.
It really depends. A very good competent friend can help you. For technical, at least adjacent, articles there are online pubs who will work with you so long as the content is at least ok. But no one is going to edit a book for you for free and a publisher has at least a middling high bar to take you on.
If you’re going with a friend, make sure they’re extremely good editors. I’ve become a good enough editor but still can’t do my friends’ writing justice. When I know people reasonably well, I understand how they communicate and find myself overlooking some grammatical quirks because I’m used to them. When I work with a near stranger, I can’t overlook anything - the piece either stands on its own or falls flat.
I’m only good enough so your mileage will vary if you’re friends with extremely competent editors. But if you work with a friend and your writing doesn’t improve, you may be working with too good of a friend.
I’m only good enough so your mileage will vary if you’re friends with extremely competent editors. But if you work with a friend and your writing doesn’t improve, you may be working with too good of a friend.
Oh I agree with that. I've seen people in tears after editors have finished with going through their work. You don't need to be nasty of course but you do need to be merciless.
Does this count as "Writing"? I write comments on HN, am I doing the "good" kind of writing?
* Nobody (and I mean nobody) is asking me to write comments,
* I'm not documenting anything (perhaps my opinion on something), and
* I am vastly under-qualified to write about the topics I "write" about.
Does tweeting count? Does commenting on Reddit/Facebook/LinkedIn/MySpace/etc. count?
If so, I think maybe it's time we give those platforms (and indeed this one) more respect; they're places that encourage people who wouldn't ever write for its own sake a way to express themselves through the written word.
* Nobody (and I mean nobody) is asking me to write comments,
* I'm not documenting anything (perhaps my opinion on something), and
* I am vastly under-qualified to write about the topics I "write" about.
Does tweeting count? Does commenting on Reddit/Facebook/LinkedIn/MySpace/etc. count?
If so, I think maybe it's time we give those platforms (and indeed this one) more respect; they're places that encourage people who wouldn't ever write for its own sake a way to express themselves through the written word.
It can and it can't, I think. A lot of the value of writing is ~exponential, when you have enough to say that you have to start weighing structure. What to say first and last; what to leave out. It's value created by wrestling with yourself about what you think, why, whether anyone else would care, and how to make them.
You can do this on social platforms. But you can also just poot out some brainfarts and scoot out of the room before anyone notices.
You can do this on social platforms. But you can also just poot out some brainfarts and scoot out of the room before anyone notices.
This is an interesting line of questioning.
I value writing for similar reasons offered by the article, and I am very much invested in note taking methodology.
I never thought of commenting as a way of note-taking. However, it makes a lot of sense to use one’s comment history as a way of looking back. It’s actually very contextualized.
I was never someone to comment much, because I thought there was no value for other people in what I have to say. Alas, looking at it as a note-taking endeavor should definitely have insightful returns.
I value writing for similar reasons offered by the article, and I am very much invested in note taking methodology.
I never thought of commenting as a way of note-taking. However, it makes a lot of sense to use one’s comment history as a way of looking back. It’s actually very contextualized.
I was never someone to comment much, because I thought there was no value for other people in what I have to say. Alas, looking at it as a note-taking endeavor should definitely have insightful returns.
> I was never someone to comment much, because I thought there was no value for other people in what I have to say.
I think this as well: if my thoughts are already well represented in other comments, or in popular/common thought in general, what's the point of repeating it? And if it's not popular/common, it's a lot of effort to articulate in a way that has a good chance of not being dismissed, and could even be inflammatory.
I think this as well: if my thoughts are already well represented in other comments, or in popular/common thought in general, what's the point of repeating it? And if it's not popular/common, it's a lot of effort to articulate in a way that has a good chance of not being dismissed, and could even be inflammatory.
Yes.
And still, there's 1) an interesting parallel with art/creation, and 2) something missing in the web toolkit for people.
1) when you (want to) create something (whatever the discipline), it seems that everyone faces this dread that what they are doing is either not popular, or just too common and used, so what's the point in creating/doing it?
When it might still be essential to do it first for oneself, because the prize is in the practice itself, not the by-product that is the result. Writing is thinking, so are
2) the idea of comments trail as a thought archive is good! I wish there was an integrated way (as integrated as "View Source") in browsers not only to comment (so publicly write something) about web documents or elements, but to annotate them - for private use first, with the option of making them public on a personal site (yes, there's https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Web_annotation but...)
And still, there's 1) an interesting parallel with art/creation, and 2) something missing in the web toolkit for people.
1) when you (want to) create something (whatever the discipline), it seems that everyone faces this dread that what they are doing is either not popular, or just too common and used, so what's the point in creating/doing it?
When it might still be essential to do it first for oneself, because the prize is in the practice itself, not the by-product that is the result. Writing is thinking, so are
2) the idea of comments trail as a thought archive is good! I wish there was an integrated way (as integrated as "View Source") in browsers not only to comment (so publicly write something) about web documents or elements, but to annotate them - for private use first, with the option of making them public on a personal site (yes, there's https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Web_annotation but...)
I think hypothes.is is the nearest thing.
It does, if only in the sense of "writing as thinking". Stating something out of oneself does help to consider it objectively, not only subjectively inside your mind, before it even gets confronted to others' understanding.
It all participates in refining the connections around the thing you're writing about, for you, and for others.
It all participates in refining the connections around the thing you're writing about, for you, and for others.
Hard to read this with the level of snob-factor immediately present in the first couple paragraphs. Right away, it put me off on wanting to find common ground with the author to agree with or internalize their points.
It seems that half the purpose of this is to convince the reader that the author is a great writer, speaking from a position of authority, followed by rather generic advice they generously take time from their busy day to offer: write more so you, too, can get better at writing.
Or perhaps it was all tongue-in-cheek, and I just didn't pick it up.
It seems that half the purpose of this is to convince the reader that the author is a great writer, speaking from a position of authority, followed by rather generic advice they generously take time from their busy day to offer: write more so you, too, can get better at writing.
Or perhaps it was all tongue-in-cheek, and I just didn't pick it up.
Yes, I can see how it may come across with a certain level of arrogance. Though I would say it's well intentioned based on the "mistakes" the author said he's made. It's been helpful to me for instance, to read about him getting over writing only "to document" and only when he "was told."
I agree. I couldn't understand what GP was talking about and I had to re-read the first three paragraphs to see what they meant when they said "snob-factor". On a second read I see where they may be coming from, but I still read it more as "I used to make mistakes, I now recognize those mistake and am a better writer because of it, here's the mistake I noticed, you can fix them too and become a better writer" than "I'm great. Wanna be as great as I am? Do as I do"
It lost me at calling people “casual text producers”.
I'm sure the author means well, but...
> Every time I looked closely at their text I could peer into their minds, and inside lay a thought process oblivious to what writing really means.
This is the literal exact basis of what we all tend to see with folk online when it comes to projecting their own thoughts and assumptions onto the text of others...
> Let’s change that. I used to misunderstand writing too, and my style suffered severely as a result. Now not only is it miles better, but I’m also a smarter human thanks to realizing the true meaning of writing. To get there, I had to spot the misconceptions I’ve been fed about writing. Reading this piece, I’m sure you’ll at least identify a couple you can build on to change your writing mindset.
Yeah... like not assuming you know everything going on in a persons head just because you read some words they wrote as a rough copy of their work...
Jeezus...
Anyways. He's right about people having that misconception about writing being easy... but I can't be bothered to read anything further due to the blowhard nature of his words he chose.
> Every time I looked closely at their text I could peer into their minds, and inside lay a thought process oblivious to what writing really means.
This is the literal exact basis of what we all tend to see with folk online when it comes to projecting their own thoughts and assumptions onto the text of others...
> Let’s change that. I used to misunderstand writing too, and my style suffered severely as a result. Now not only is it miles better, but I’m also a smarter human thanks to realizing the true meaning of writing. To get there, I had to spot the misconceptions I’ve been fed about writing. Reading this piece, I’m sure you’ll at least identify a couple you can build on to change your writing mindset.
Yeah... like not assuming you know everything going on in a persons head just because you read some words they wrote as a rough copy of their work...
Jeezus...
Anyways. He's right about people having that misconception about writing being easy... but I can't be bothered to read anything further due to the blowhard nature of his words he chose.
> Two problems with writing: first, it looks easy because it uses the same symbols of speech; second, everyone who was taught the alphabet and basic sentence structures can produce something similar to writing when it’s not. Writers, however, know it’s painfully hard to produce one readable, unambiguous paragraph. On the other hand, casual text producers (read: the majority) think it takes nothing special to write. This amateur attitude makes writing the most misunderstood activity.
There's some irony in this first paragraph being not-so-well written, right?
> first, it looks easy because it uses the same symbols of speech
Same symbols as... speaking? as other writing? There's a comparison made here that isn't completed.
> second, everyone who was taught the alphabet and basic sentence structures can produce something similar to writing when it’s not.
Same problem; "when some writing is not actually similar to other writing" I assume was the intent, but this is a stilted way of making that point. A better (though longer) way of saying this might be, "Anyone taught the alphabet and English sentence structure can produce 'writing', but what those people produce bears little resemblance to what 'good' writing actually looks like."
I don't really want to go through and pick this whole article apart, I just thought it was interesting the author "chose" to start their article on "good writing is hard" by writing a poor opening paragraph!
There's some irony in this first paragraph being not-so-well written, right?
> first, it looks easy because it uses the same symbols of speech
Same symbols as... speaking? as other writing? There's a comparison made here that isn't completed.
> second, everyone who was taught the alphabet and basic sentence structures can produce something similar to writing when it’s not.
Same problem; "when some writing is not actually similar to other writing" I assume was the intent, but this is a stilted way of making that point. A better (though longer) way of saying this might be, "Anyone taught the alphabet and English sentence structure can produce 'writing', but what those people produce bears little resemblance to what 'good' writing actually looks like."
I don't really want to go through and pick this whole article apart, I just thought it was interesting the author "chose" to start their article on "good writing is hard" by writing a poor opening paragraph!
The whole article suffers from poor writing (on an objective scale) from start to finish.
What we don't know is where the author started from: On a subjective scale, they may be a significantly better writer than when they started.
Neither of those things actually good responses to the article, though: Good writing is hard, and the article demonstrates that well.
What we don't know is where the author started from: On a subjective scale, they may be a significantly better writer than when they started.
Neither of those things actually good responses to the article, though: Good writing is hard, and the article demonstrates that well.
Perhaps the author: posits skill when isn’t.
Yeah, something seemed a little “off” about the writing style, in an unusual way. This is “real writing,” I take it?
Yeah, something seemed a little “off” about the writing style, in an unusual way. This is “real writing,” I take it?
I find this pervasive idea that "documenting" things is just a thoughtless dump of facts very troublesome.
Certainly, most "documentation" I read is just a thoughtless dunp of arbitrary facts about some system, design, code, or event or what have you. But it should be better.
There are infinitely many true statements to make about some thing in order to document it. The art is in determining which ideas and facts about it are relevant for an audience, and finding a way to express those ideas and/or facts clearly for.that audience, in a logical order, using good prose, diagrams, etc. I think that's as hard as any other writing task, and arguably more valuable than many. Documentation captures facts for record and makes them accessible to some audience who otherwise would not have known about that thing. What could be a more important kind of knowledge work than that?
Certainly, most "documentation" I read is just a thoughtless dunp of arbitrary facts about some system, design, code, or event or what have you. But it should be better.
There are infinitely many true statements to make about some thing in order to document it. The art is in determining which ideas and facts about it are relevant for an audience, and finding a way to express those ideas and/or facts clearly for.that audience, in a logical order, using good prose, diagrams, etc. I think that's as hard as any other writing task, and arguably more valuable than many. Documentation captures facts for record and makes them accessible to some audience who otherwise would not have known about that thing. What could be a more important kind of knowledge work than that?
This amateur attitude makes writing the most misunderstood activity.
What breathtaking arrogance. It falls into even sharper contrast in light of how this article is written with at best dry competence. Perhaps I'm too harsh, but coincidentally I today had the experience of being utterly sucked into some writing on a subject about which I cared nothing by the sheer talent of the writer after I stumbled across "Stranger in the Village" by James Baldwin.
What breathtaking arrogance. It falls into even sharper contrast in light of how this article is written with at best dry competence. Perhaps I'm too harsh, but coincidentally I today had the experience of being utterly sucked into some writing on a subject about which I cared nothing by the sheer talent of the writer after I stumbled across "Stranger in the Village" by James Baldwin.
I am actually in awe of writing!
Human speech itself is amazing, with no other animal having anything close to it.
And then we have writing, where we can encode this speech where people distant from you in time and space and read and understand it.
And here is the kicker: it is a pretty universal human ability now!
In the past, maybe 1% or fewer of a population could write. Now, we have almost universal literacy throughout the developed world, and a global literacy rate above 85%.
I find all this amazing.
Human speech itself is amazing, with no other animal having anything close to it.
And then we have writing, where we can encode this speech where people distant from you in time and space and read and understand it.
And here is the kicker: it is a pretty universal human ability now!
In the past, maybe 1% or fewer of a population could write. Now, we have almost universal literacy throughout the developed world, and a global literacy rate above 85%.
I find all this amazing.
Looks like a 'text producer' article. There's a lot of ideas mixed together into one long rant about writing. Even the headline itself isn't good. Surely, 'writing: a misunderstood activity' does the job better. But the article is not so much about style than it is about exploring ideas.
The author doesn't consider the other way people explore ideas: talking and engaging in discussions. The 'text producer' is this other kind of explorer of ideas. Yes it pays to organise your mind, but the exploration itself is important too.
The author doesn't consider the other way people explore ideas: talking and engaging in discussions. The 'text producer' is this other kind of explorer of ideas. Yes it pays to organise your mind, but the exploration itself is important too.
Is the point of this article that the author wants to be recognised as being special because they can write well? If so that's ironic in a few ways. Even then the idea that "the majority" thinks writing is easy is counter to my personal experience so I guess one of us is bad at judging the average opinions of people.
The article's subheadings are kind of confusing as well because I expected them to be a list of misconceptions but they are instead phases of the author's writing career.
I write all the time on HN. It seems to be mainly a pointless exercise though because the ideas that I think are important/new are generally ignored or hated.
LOL. I think a lot of people look at something like this and think "I could do this" because, very plainly, they know that they could. I don't think there are a lot of people who read A Confederacy of Dunces or The Cask of Amontillado or The Lottery or The Trial and feel like they could do it, because, very plainly, they realize that they cannot.
Writing is used for understanding and for communication. These are two different activities. Ie, the prototype is not the product. Highly recommend the book Thinking on Paper, https://www.amazon.com/Thinking-Paper-V-Howard/dp/0688077587
Unfortunately, the writing here presents scant literary values to support its own message. This is itself an example of writing that could have better been conveyed as three bullet points on a powerpoint slide. It’s “three things not to do”, not any one compelling reason to write (e.g., because it’s a transcendental experience and illustrating why that is).
Is it just me or is there a sudden hype around writing?
There seems to be a whole bunch of popular courses and content around how you HAVE to write or you need to write to think.
Most of these articles seem to boil down to "writing gives you clarity of thought".
Why must it be only writing and not drawing or just going out and thinking?
There seems to be a whole bunch of popular courses and content around how you HAVE to write or you need to write to think.
Most of these articles seem to boil down to "writing gives you clarity of thought".
Why must it be only writing and not drawing or just going out and thinking?
Try to write down some stuff you are thinking and it will become clear.
Just thinking gives the illusion of clarity, but when you try to put it down to words it all falls apart.
My tip on writing is to stop thinking about what you want to say and think instead about what you want your audience to perceive. That may sound obvious or meaningless, but there's a subtle difference and it helped my writing become more effective.
I took away from these that we should write more when there's no intrinsic goal to the writing to see where it takes you the author. But writing with no goal is a goal in itself.
I think this is how you invoke the Stay-Puft Marshmallow Man.
I think this is how you invoke the Stay-Puft Marshmallow Man.
> propelling you to a flood of potentials
I've been looking for this for a long time, the exquisite, electric pleasure of bathing in a flood of potentials...
I've been looking for this for a long time, the exquisite, electric pleasure of bathing in a flood of potentials...
What a pleasant piece by the way. I really enjoyed his style.
I'm totally aligned with the author on the value of writing as a tool for thinking, learning, and exploring and I agree that there are blockers for some folks that make them less likely to stretch their writing muscles, especially in professional settings where the default is often "let's jump on a quick call".
Sadly, the article is poorly written. I don't expect professional-level editing on a personal blog, but I would hope for a higher standard when the piece is written by someone who is building and (presumably) charging money for a course on writing.