8 ms·

Copy What You Like (2006)

129 points by Jimmy 9y ago

deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
EGreg 9y ago
I don't trust the authorities on HN for what's a good comment. I am going to type something amazing that might get me downvoted. Vive la difference!
voidhorse 9y ago
Interesting. PG provides a thought provoking opinion, and he's a fine writer. However, I think this idea is a bit naive. Sure, maybe he came to realize depressing, moody short stories weren't his thing, but I damn near guarantee his imitation of said stories was crucial to his learning how to write half-way decently. The vast majority of philosophers are not good writers. A few stand out as fine men of letters, Nietzsche, Schopenhauer, Cioran, and some others, but the vast majority of them are more concerned with the clear step-wise elucidation of an argument which, while important, rarely leads to an enjoyable or noteworthy result in the domain of literary style and is frequently bland and dry. There is some special enjoyment one derives out of the works of the like of Russell and Frege, but it relates to the crystalline nature of their ideas, not the genius of their literary style. Take for instance the rhetorical technique Paul utilizes in the first graph--the repetitions of Mistake n. x. Mistake n. x. Mistake n. x...etc. That sort of structure, and indeed the casual tone, is pretty rare in academic philosophy, and in academic computer science. Where is it more common? In the efforts of short story writers, informal essayists and other such literary folk. I do agree that its natural to imitate what you like, and beneficial, but there's something to be said for imitating things you are averse to as well--they present more of a challenge because you have to overcome your natural dislike for the thing and really evaluate it--you have to question your own opinion of it, have to see if you can uncover any diamonds in the muck, have to see if, even if you dislike it, you have the chops to pull it off. In short, you grow as a person. Sure, the same thing happens when you make an easy picnic of your studies and imitations, but its silly to discount the value of forcing yourself to engage with views opposite your own, or things you are naturally disinclined toward. I think Paul makes the mistake of assuming his conclusion in this essay before reaching it. He seems to have decided that none of his history copying these things he didn't like was valuable from the start, when, if he reflected a bit more, I'm sure he'd be able to find that, in fact, those were important links in the chain in some sense, and not total wastes of time. That being said, he is correct that we need to determine value for ourselves and to come up with our own metrics and schemes of judgement. However, there is still value in the old pantheon--in the recommendations of all the men who walked before us, in all those stuffy critics and analysts babblings. After all, giants are giant for a reason. While it's important, as Paul says, to get over blindly accepting as good or special what everyone else considers good or special, it's just as important to be able to understand why these things are considered special in a particular domain. You have to learn your own predilections--but you also have to learn the rules, the history, the techniques, and the value scales coupled with a field of art--the master is he who can bridge the two, he who engages in tradition while changing it, he who plays by the rules while making his own.
- baby 9y ago
  I actually didn't like this "mistake, mistake" thing. I didn't know if it was based on what was said previously or what was to come.
  - voidhorse 9y ago
    Yeah, it would have been clearer, and grammatically correct, if he had used a colon instead of a period. Though it also would have been less stylish. The fine essay is a delicate balance between style and clarity.
    - sillysaurus3 9y ago
      Paul mentioned he reads his essays out loud. In that context, it flows nicely.
      - baby 9y ago
        Because he understands how to read it. Punctuation is here to help the reader, not the writer, to read his texts. BTW it reminds me of Flaubert who did shout out loud every sentences he would write. https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=mPpydgyUSKQC&pg=PA244&lpg=PA244&dq=flaubert+shout+out+loud&source=bl&ots=iPVD_TQatK&sig=esWkQ94I7QVWFr18upF4ewpPcRk&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwj2zpaQt87UAhWHDcAKHax1AZQQ6AEIJDAA#v=onepage&q=flaubert%20shout%20out%20loud&f=false https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=mPpydgyUSKQC&pg=PA244&lp...
- Jimmy 9y ago
  >The vast majority of philosophers are not good writers. I never understood this claim. I have to assume that people are letting their judgement of the content affect the judgement of the writing style. Plenty of canonical philosophers were absolutely beautiful writers - Plato, Hume, Nietzsche. Modern analytic philosophers are almost fanatical in their adherence to simple, straightforward language. The result might not be beautiful, but I certainly don't think you can call it "bad" either. Some philosophers may be bad writers (Hegel is a pain), but on the whole they seem to be mostly good writers. It's all that they do, after all. >After all, giants are giant for a reason. Well... are they? All of them? I think you can make this claim with a good deal of confidence about math and science, because we have a pretty strict set of rules for evaluating good and bad work. But do you really think that everyone in the artistic canon has a good reason to be there? What about all the still-living artists who have only recently been "canonized" via a flurry of academic attention (writers like DeLillo and Pynchon would be good examples). Are we confident that we'll still be talking about those guys 200 years from now? If not, how far back in time do we have to go before we can confidently say, "these giants have a reason to be giants?" I'm not endorsing pure aesthetic relativism, nor am I saying that none of the canonical artists deserve to be there. I'm just saying that I've never heard a convincing explanation of why the canon is a good judge of, well, anything.
6stringmerc 9y ago
It's kind of funny to see such a profound and important lesson distilled in to such a kitsch cross-stitch type musing. That might sound harsh but look closely - it took Graham 10+ years of following the wrong mental path before finally finding the right one. It's not about "copying what you like" it's about "finding yourself first" - and, even then, there's no guarantee self-actualization will put food on the table or pay medical bills. All that in context, this would make a great inscription on a whisky flask: >A guilty pleasure is at least a pure one.
- Jimmy 9y ago
  >It's kind of funny to see such a profound and important lesson distilled in to such a kitsch cross-stitch type musing. Yeah, this is definitely one of the aspects of PG's writing that I enjoy and admire the most. Though there is a danger that that kind of simplicity can become misleading. Regardless, I think that there really is an important lesson to be learned here. I work in an artistic field and have been having something of a philosophical crisis over the past week, but this essay (and a few similar ones from other authors) helped pull me out of it. Life is short and getting inducted into the canon of "great works of art" seems to depend mostly on random factors. I'm trying to work myself towards a view now where the only things that matter are a) whether I like my work, and b) whether there's an audience that likes my work, critics and academics be damned.
  - 6stringmerc 9y ago
    Thanks for understanding what I was going for, and I'd like to offer just a slight bit of additional encouragement as another creative artist. Just pursue what you want to make, work on it, grow, and either the world will take notice, or, at worst, simply ignore it (baseline result). You're right that being "in the canon" is really a luck-of-circumstance type of thing. Just ask all those dead black guitarists that Jimmy Page of Led Zeppelin ripped off over the years. He's in the canon, very few of them are, but what does that mean? It means do what you do, do it the best you can, and when you die, it's something that will live on after you forever. Not a lot of CEOs or Founders can say the same about their life's work.
- 9y ago
icantdrive55 9y ago
I agree with PG for the most part. As to copying--I think we all do it. BF Skinner spent a lifetime trying to get us to realize we all copy. I had a Psych teacher, who did Gardening during the the summers, whom told us flat out, "You're not original--you're just Copying. Some of you will copy better than others, or will be able to copy the right stuff?" I still can picture his conviction when he would lecture. I remember thinking this guy is so different than the other teachers. He was a true rebal, with some very high ethics. It doesn't matter what I think because I am poor. As for art, for years I didn't get it. I still don't get a lot of it. I did have a nervous breakdown in my twenties. I finally kinda got Modern Art. Or, at least the stuff that isn't popular. I needed to bust a gasket in order to understand the beauty behind Modern Art. That might be the only positive to having a breakdown, at least for myself. But then my opinions don't matter because I'm not wealthy, or credentialed by our society.
pascalxus 9y ago
I happen to agree with him on this post. And, although it's excellent advice, you have to understand, its not a popular view point, and that by taking this advice to heart, you'll deviate significantly from social norms. The vast majority of people value "impressive" things as he's defined them and won't put up with your Objective analysis of what's good. Case in point, They'll sneer and look down upon you for buying the 10$ jeans (that are the same or better quality as 100$ jeans!), or a refurbished 2 year old 150$ android phone, that works perfectly and has everything you could ever need. They'll hate on you for buying 2nd hand excellent products at low prices. I could care less what they think, but nevertheless, it still impacts how they interact with you.
- Kenji 9y ago
  Popularity is the opposite of progress because progress is that which is not yet popular. Social norms are equal to mediocrity and conformity. I realized that trusting one's own intuition and going one's own way pays off in the long term.
- taurath 9y ago
  Which is funny, because being extremely frugal/minimalist in some circles I know is seen as a status booster. But again, don't worry, there'll always be some group that holds up your values. Just keep making sure that you're still actually into it and not just trying to hold onto the group.
  - bittercynic 9y ago
    I think the values of the groups you're a member of influence your values, and that's not necessarily a bad thing. A well-adjusted adult probably has to have many values that they don't compromise on, but also many where there is some flexibility, and where continuing good standing within the group is more valuable that clinging to a value that conflicts with the group.
samirillian 9y ago
> It was so clearly a choice of doing good work xor being an insider that I was forced to see the distinction. Not sure I get this. Doing good work would seem to go along with being an outsider in a corrupt economy.
- fenwick67 9y ago
  XOR meaning exclusively one or the other. He's saying it was apparent that if you're an insider, you won't do good work. And if you're doing good work, you're not an insider.
  - omilu 9y ago
    I didn't get this either even though I understand XOR. I get it now.
emtel 9y ago
It's kind of sad that PG couldn't get anything more than that out of the short stories he read in high school english. Sure, a lot of them are forgettable, but if I think think of the stories I read that stuck with me, they all had a heck of a lot more going on than just being a random slice of mundane unhappiness. A few that really stuck with me: The Secret Life of Walter Mitty (James Thurber), The Open Boat (Stephen Crane), The Long Sheet (William Sansom). If PG couldn't find anything funny, gripping, or worthwhile in stories like these, well, his loss. It wouldn't even be worth making this comment, except that PG seems to consider himself some sort of authority on writing (http://www.paulgraham.com/talk.html http://www.paulgraham.com/talk.html) - and for him, the one and only rule of style seems to be simplicity. I'll agree, simple beats overwrought, but c'mon. Great writers have a style that makes you want to copy it, which is something that PG doesn't seem aware of even as an aspiration.
- hashhar 9y ago
  I agree with you. I have been reading Stephen King's "The Body" which is a short story/novella and there he describes the journey of 4 friends to see a dead body somewhere in the middle of the desert out of town. There's a section where the kids are walking on a railway bridge and a train comes up and they have nowhere to go but to jump to a 50 feet drop into a river. That scene is so beautifully written that I could feel myself watching the events right in front of me. He also talks about how his feelings towards storytelling changed after he started doing it as his primary income source instead of a hobby he had during childhood. Very interesting stuff.
  - lemonberry 9y ago
    A movie was made 1986 based on this called "Stand by Me". It was a favorite when I was young. River Phoenix, Corey Feldman and Wil Wheaton are in it. It may seem dated and shallow compared to the story, but it's worth watching.
- terminalcommand 9y ago
  IMHO PG still states that written and spoken language are different. I think the lesson to be drawn from the essay is simple: be honest. Don't try to trick your readers by trying to use fancy words and then fail. Brutal honesty written in an understandable manner has a real weight not to be underestimated. You don't need to write like you're talking to a child at all, but you shouldn't reach out for words and expressions just because they sound fancier. This may be my personal opinion, but I have no stomach for literature that is written with dishonest intentions.
notadoc 9y ago
Fair advice. You see this frequently with art, startups, technology, and business in general. Reminds me of a quote told to me by a very successful entrepreneur: "The best idea I ever had was someone else's"
omginternets 9y ago
Part of me agrees with this, but another part says "this is the best way to avoid discovering anything new and profound". I've often read things I haven't enjoyed (or even understood) until much later.
scandox 9y ago
Assuming intellectual dishonesty across a whole group of people or discipline is a mistake. Most things are bad but this approach actually blinds you to what is good within the bad and it sets your views in stone and prevents development.
dredmorbius 9y ago
Bad advice. At the very best, grosssly incomplete and misleading. After rejecting what other people like, the best pg can come up with is ... to follow what you like. That's an equally fraught heuristic, though it may be more avaialble for observation and examination. Realise that what works does so regardless of appeal. But that there's a great deal which has (near-term) appeal which doesn't work (long-term). Sometimes it's a false start, sometimes it's a fad, sometimes it's cargo-culting, sometimes it's an establishment of common ground which facilitates communication or understanding but not effectiveness. I'd suggest instead: Look at what is being practiced, and ask why? In the case of the short story: the history of literacy, amusement, entertainment, postal delivery, publishing and printing technology, advertising, bundling concepts, and the lack of subsequent alternatives (radio, television), increased literacy, and free time, made the short story a popular format. Different dynamics brought forth the radio serial, soap operas (first on radio, then television, now the White House), sit-coms, movie serials, blockbuster movies, space operas, and comic-book franchise preboot requels. Funding environments can create entire classes of research or application -- surveillance capitalism, AI, national security, moon shots, abstract art COINTELPRO. I'm the last space alien cat to ask what you should do that leads to success, though my own heuristic has been to look for fundamental questions, ask a lot of why, and question premises. Going back to roots and history can make a lot of foundations look far less firm. There may or may not be opportunity there. I'd also focus very hard on being lucky.

129 points by Jimmy 9y ago

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

I don't trust the authorities on HN for what's a good comment. I am going to type something amazing that might get me downvoted. Vive la difference!

voidhorse 9y ago

Interesting. PG provides a thought provoking opinion, and he's a fine writer. However, I think this idea is a bit naive. Sure, maybe he came to realize depressing, moody short stories weren't his thing, but I damn near guarantee his imitation of said stories was crucial to his learning how to write half-way decently. The vast majority of philosophers are not good writers. A few stand out as fine men of letters, Nietzsche, Schopenhauer, Cioran, and some others, but the vast majority of them are more concerned with the clear step-wise elucidation of an argument which, while important, rarely leads to an enjoyable or noteworthy result in the domain of literary style and is frequently bland and dry. There is some special enjoyment one derives out of the works of the like of Russell and Frege, but it relates to the crystalline nature of their ideas, not the genius of their literary style. Take for instance the rhetorical technique Paul utilizes in the first graph--the repetitions of Mistake n. x. Mistake n. x. Mistake n. x...etc. That sort of structure, and indeed the casual tone, is pretty rare in academic philosophy, and in academic computer science. Where is it more common? In the efforts of short story writers, informal essayists and other such literary folk. I do agree that its natural to imitate what you like, and beneficial, but there's something to be said for imitating things you are averse to as well--they present more of a challenge because you have to overcome your natural dislike for the thing and really evaluate it--you have to question your own opinion of it, have to see if you can uncover any diamonds in the muck, have to see if, even if you dislike it, you have the chops to pull it off. In short, you grow as a person. Sure, the same thing happens when you make an easy picnic of your studies and imitations, but its silly to discount the value of forcing yourself to engage with views opposite your own, or things you are naturally disinclined toward. I think Paul makes the mistake of assuming his conclusion in this essay before reaching it. He seems to have decided that none of his history copying these things he didn't like was valuable from the start, when, if he reflected a bit more, I'm sure he'd be able to find that, in fact, those were important links in the chain in some sense, and not total wastes of time. That being said, he is correct that we need to determine value for ourselves and to come up with our own metrics and schemes of judgement. However, there is still value in the old pantheon--in the recommendations of all the men who walked before us, in all those stuffy critics and analysts babblings. After all, giants are giant for a reason. While it's important, as Paul says, to get over blindly accepting as good or special what everyone else considers good or special, it's just as important to be able to understand why these things are considered special in a particular domain. You have to learn your own predilections--but you also have to learn the rules, the history, the techniques, and the value scales coupled with a field of art--the master is he who can bridge the two, he who engages in tradition while changing it, he who plays by the rules while making his own.

baby 9y ago
I actually didn't like this "mistake, mistake" thing. I didn't know if it was based on what was said previously or what was to come.
- voidhorse 9y ago
  Yeah, it would have been clearer, and grammatically correct, if he had used a colon instead of a period. Though it also would have been less stylish. The fine essay is a delicate balance between style and clarity.
  - sillysaurus3 9y ago
    Paul mentioned he reads his essays out loud. In that context, it flows nicely.
    - baby 9y ago
      Because he understands how to read it. Punctuation is here to help the reader, not the writer, to read his texts. BTW it reminds me of Flaubert who did shout out loud every sentences he would write. https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=mPpydgyUSKQC&pg=PA244&lpg=PA244&dq=flaubert+shout+out+loud&source=bl&ots=iPVD_TQatK&sig=esWkQ94I7QVWFr18upF4ewpPcRk&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwj2zpaQt87UAhWHDcAKHax1AZQQ6AEIJDAA#v=onepage&q=flaubert%20shout%20out%20loud&f=false https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=mPpydgyUSKQC&pg=PA244&lp...
Jimmy 9y ago
>The vast majority of philosophers are not good writers. I never understood this claim. I have to assume that people are letting their judgement of the content affect the judgement of the writing style. Plenty of canonical philosophers were absolutely beautiful writers - Plato, Hume, Nietzsche. Modern analytic philosophers are almost fanatical in their adherence to simple, straightforward language. The result might not be beautiful, but I certainly don't think you can call it "bad" either. Some philosophers may be bad writers (Hegel is a pain), but on the whole they seem to be mostly good writers. It's all that they do, after all. >After all, giants are giant for a reason. Well... are they? All of them? I think you can make this claim with a good deal of confidence about math and science, because we have a pretty strict set of rules for evaluating good and bad work. But do you really think that everyone in the artistic canon has a good reason to be there? What about all the still-living artists who have only recently been "canonized" via a flurry of academic attention (writers like DeLillo and Pynchon would be good examples). Are we confident that we'll still be talking about those guys 200 years from now? If not, how far back in time do we have to go before we can confidently say, "these giants have a reason to be giants?" I'm not endorsing pure aesthetic relativism, nor am I saying that none of the canonical artists deserve to be there. I'm just saying that I've never heard a convincing explanation of why the canon is a good judge of, well, anything.

6stringmerc 9y ago

It's kind of funny to see such a profound and important lesson distilled in to such a kitsch cross-stitch type musing. That might sound harsh but look closely - it took Graham 10+ years of following the wrong mental path before finally finding the right one. It's not about "copying what you like" it's about "finding yourself first" - and, even then, there's no guarantee self-actualization will put food on the table or pay medical bills. All that in context, this would make a great inscription on a whisky flask: >A guilty pleasure is at least a pure one.

Jimmy 9y ago
>It's kind of funny to see such a profound and important lesson distilled in to such a kitsch cross-stitch type musing. Yeah, this is definitely one of the aspects of PG's writing that I enjoy and admire the most. Though there is a danger that that kind of simplicity can become misleading. Regardless, I think that there really is an important lesson to be learned here. I work in an artistic field and have been having something of a philosophical crisis over the past week, but this essay (and a few similar ones from other authors) helped pull me out of it. Life is short and getting inducted into the canon of "great works of art" seems to depend mostly on random factors. I'm trying to work myself towards a view now where the only things that matter are a) whether I like my work, and b) whether there's an audience that likes my work, critics and academics be damned.
- 6stringmerc 9y ago
  Thanks for understanding what I was going for, and I'd like to offer just a slight bit of additional encouragement as another creative artist. Just pursue what you want to make, work on it, grow, and either the world will take notice, or, at worst, simply ignore it (baseline result). You're right that being "in the canon" is really a luck-of-circumstance type of thing. Just ask all those dead black guitarists that Jimmy Page of Led Zeppelin ripped off over the years. He's in the canon, very few of them are, but what does that mean? It means do what you do, do it the best you can, and when you die, it's something that will live on after you forever. Not a lot of CEOs or Founders can say the same about their life's work.
9y ago

icantdrive55 9y ago

I agree with PG for the most part. As to copying--I think we all do it. BF Skinner spent a lifetime trying to get us to realize we all copy. I had a Psych teacher, who did Gardening during the the summers, whom told us flat out, "You're not original--you're just Copying. Some of you will copy better than others, or will be able to copy the right stuff?" I still can picture his conviction when he would lecture. I remember thinking this guy is so different than the other teachers. He was a true rebal, with some very high ethics. It doesn't matter what I think because I am poor. As for art, for years I didn't get it. I still don't get a lot of it. I did have a nervous breakdown in my twenties. I finally kinda got Modern Art. Or, at least the stuff that isn't popular. I needed to bust a gasket in order to understand the beauty behind Modern Art. That might be the only positive to having a breakdown, at least for myself. But then my opinions don't matter because I'm not wealthy, or credentialed by our society.

pascalxus 9y ago

I happen to agree with him on this post. And, although it's excellent advice, you have to understand, its not a popular view point, and that by taking this advice to heart, you'll deviate significantly from social norms. The vast majority of people value "impressive" things as he's defined them and won't put up with your Objective analysis of what's good. Case in point, They'll sneer and look down upon you for buying the 10$ jeans (that are the same or better quality as 100$ jeans!), or a refurbished 2 year old 150$ android phone, that works perfectly and has everything you could ever need. They'll hate on you for buying 2nd hand excellent products at low prices. I could care less what they think, but nevertheless, it still impacts how they interact with you.

Kenji 9y ago
Popularity is the opposite of progress because progress is that which is not yet popular. Social norms are equal to mediocrity and conformity. I realized that trusting one's own intuition and going one's own way pays off in the long term.
taurath 9y ago
Which is funny, because being extremely frugal/minimalist in some circles I know is seen as a status booster. But again, don't worry, there'll always be some group that holds up your values. Just keep making sure that you're still actually into it and not just trying to hold onto the group.
- bittercynic 9y ago
  I think the values of the groups you're a member of influence your values, and that's not necessarily a bad thing. A well-adjusted adult probably has to have many values that they don't compromise on, but also many where there is some flexibility, and where continuing good standing within the group is more valuable that clinging to a value that conflicts with the group.

samirillian 9y ago

> It was so clearly a choice of doing good work xor being an insider that I was forced to see the distinction. Not sure I get this. Doing good work would seem to go along with being an outsider in a corrupt economy.

fenwick67 9y ago
XOR meaning exclusively one or the other. He's saying it was apparent that if you're an insider, you won't do good work. And if you're doing good work, you're not an insider.
- omilu 9y ago
  I didn't get this either even though I understand XOR. I get it now.

emtel 9y ago

It's kind of sad that PG couldn't get anything more than that out of the short stories he read in high school english. Sure, a lot of them are forgettable, but if I think think of the stories I read that stuck with me, they all had a heck of a lot more going on than just being a random slice of mundane unhappiness. A few that really stuck with me: The Secret Life of Walter Mitty (James Thurber), The Open Boat (Stephen Crane), The Long Sheet (William Sansom). If PG couldn't find anything funny, gripping, or worthwhile in stories like these, well, his loss. It wouldn't even be worth making this comment, except that PG seems to consider himself some sort of authority on writing (http://www.paulgraham.com/talk.html http://www.paulgraham.com/talk.html) - and for him, the one and only rule of style seems to be simplicity. I'll agree, simple beats overwrought, but c'mon. Great writers have a style that makes you want to copy it, which is something that PG doesn't seem aware of even as an aspiration.

hashhar 9y ago
I agree with you. I have been reading Stephen King's "The Body" which is a short story/novella and there he describes the journey of 4 friends to see a dead body somewhere in the middle of the desert out of town. There's a section where the kids are walking on a railway bridge and a train comes up and they have nowhere to go but to jump to a 50 feet drop into a river. That scene is so beautifully written that I could feel myself watching the events right in front of me. He also talks about how his feelings towards storytelling changed after he started doing it as his primary income source instead of a hobby he had during childhood. Very interesting stuff.
- lemonberry 9y ago
  A movie was made 1986 based on this called "Stand by Me". It was a favorite when I was young. River Phoenix, Corey Feldman and Wil Wheaton are in it. It may seem dated and shallow compared to the story, but it's worth watching.
terminalcommand 9y ago
IMHO PG still states that written and spoken language are different. I think the lesson to be drawn from the essay is simple: be honest. Don't try to trick your readers by trying to use fancy words and then fail. Brutal honesty written in an understandable manner has a real weight not to be underestimated. You don't need to write like you're talking to a child at all, but you shouldn't reach out for words and expressions just because they sound fancier. This may be my personal opinion, but I have no stomach for literature that is written with dishonest intentions.

notadoc 9y ago

Fair advice. You see this frequently with art, startups, technology, and business in general. Reminds me of a quote told to me by a very successful entrepreneur: "The best idea I ever had was someone else's"

omginternets 9y ago

Part of me agrees with this, but another part says "this is the best way to avoid discovering anything new and profound". I've often read things I haven't enjoyed (or even understood) until much later.

scandox 9y ago

Assuming intellectual dishonesty across a whole group of people or discipline is a mistake. Most things are bad but this approach actually blinds you to what is good within the bad and it sets your views in stone and prevents development.

dredmorbius 9y ago

Bad advice. At the very best, grosssly incomplete and misleading. After rejecting what other people like, the best pg can come up with is ... to follow what you like. That's an equally fraught heuristic, though it may be more avaialble for observation and examination. Realise that what works does so regardless of appeal. But that there's a great deal which has (near-term) appeal which doesn't work (long-term). Sometimes it's a false start, sometimes it's a fad, sometimes it's cargo-culting, sometimes it's an establishment of common ground which facilitates communication or understanding but not effectiveness. I'd suggest instead: Look at what is being practiced, and ask why? In the case of the short story: the history of literacy, amusement, entertainment, postal delivery, publishing and printing technology, advertising, bundling concepts, and the lack of subsequent alternatives (radio, television), increased literacy, and free time, made the short story a popular format. Different dynamics brought forth the radio serial, soap operas (first on radio, then television, now the White House), sit-coms, movie serials, blockbuster movies, space operas, and comic-book franchise preboot requels. Funding environments can create entire classes of research or application -- surveillance capitalism, AI, national security, moon shots, abstract art COINTELPRO. I'm the last space alien cat to ask what you should do that leads to success, though my own heuristic has been to look for fundamental questions, ask a lot of why, and question premises. Going back to roots and history can make a lot of foundations look far less firm. There may or may not be opportunity there. I'd also focus very hard on being lucky.