5 ms·

It was late summer night when I noticed that article on HN. I immediately noticed it's organized like a novel - this popular lame style which often annoys me l

It was late summer night when I noticed that article on HN. I immediately noticed it's organized like a novel - this popular lame style which often annoys me lately: Matthew Prince knew what was coming. The CEO of Cloudflare, an internet security company and content delivery network in San Francisco, was behind his desk when the emails began to trickle in ... Was he really behind his desk? Hesitated a little before posting - am I trying to self-assert by deriding others? But this "novel" article style is some new fashion / cliche which might be interesting to discuss. Let's see what others think.

bubblethink 9y ago
The recent WaPo article about Russian interference in the US election where stuff arrived in envelopes with top secret written on them, and people huddling around it, was also off putting.
Zyst 9y ago
I like it. I really enjoy the overly dramatic and/or expositional style is something I greatly enjoy in general.
xattt 9y ago
It's emulating the style of writing that Wired pioneered in tech. When Joe Blow tries their hand at it, it's overdone and nuances that makes it great are in all the wrong places.
nstart 9y ago
It's a matter of personal taste. The only cautionary advice to writers who employ this style would be to tell them that not all exaggerations are equal. Sitting behind the desk when the email came in is a harmless exaggeration. It doesn't matter if he was really in bed or at dinner. The dramatic embellishment does little or nothing to change the facts or perceptions in a meaningful way. If it's ok, we can point to NYT's article on Trump and his aides from some time ago. Aides stumbling in the darkness unable to find light switches type line. Something like that is damaging and deserves proof before writing. Doesn't matter which way you lean, that's dangerous waters since that's been written with an intent to alter perceptions in a meaningful way. To cast a group of people as confused and befuddled. If this article (the TC cloudflare one) was to write about the patent trolls in a dramatic style that vilified them, that too would be wrong. Something like "In the photo, Freeman can be seen standing on a bridge with a wry smile as if imagining the future in which the lawyers control the game." Would be very dangerous and should not be encouraged. Thankfully this article seems to follow a simple expositional style (somewhat third person narrative of cloudflare's perspective) with a little droplet of drama that just enhances the story rather than manipulating perceptions or reality.
mnm1 9y ago
Since you asked ... As both a writer and reader, I fucking hate it. I think it's fucking piss-poor writing by journalists who don't know how to be journalists and don't even know how to write an article, all in the name of attracting simple-minded readers with a one of the lamest prose techniques possible. I'm here to read an article about patents. I'm not interested in the opening few paragraphs of a bad novel. If I wanted to read a bad novel, I'd pick up a bad novel. If these "journalists" want to write a novel, then they should do that and stop writing "journalism" articles. This is one of the worst scourges of online "journalism" and frankly, I'm tired of having to skip the first few paragraphs of every article because I don't want to read some fucking stupid little story over and over again and want to get to the content. What ever happened to traditional journalism, where the facts are laid out at the top and the details come in later? It seems that "journalism" nowadays can't even get that right. If they want to put a stupid story, at least put it at the end where it belongs, where few or none will read it. You could say this is a little pet peeve of mine. Thanks for asking.
- TeMPOraL 9y ago
  The reason is simple - they (people responsible for the form of articles, which may not always include the original journalist) don't care about you. They're not here to deliver you value. They're here to extract value from you. My rule of thumb is simple: I look at a service and ask myself, is what I see a good, efficient way to deliver the value the service says it delivers? If the answer is no, I know that they don't give a shit about delivering value, they're only there to extract it. In the concrete example of journalism: inverted pyramid, TL;DR of the facts at the top, no useless prose - those are signs of trying to deliver value. Prose, multi-page articles, ads, auto-playing videos (be it ads or "content") - those are signs they don't give a shit about you. And yes, some may say that companies seek balance between profitability and value. Sure, maybe companies think they do that. But the choices they make matter. If they're making money literally on wasting my time, the most precious resource any human being has, then I don't want to have anything to do with them. Which is why I don't read the news. The state of the journalism is so bad here, that casual browsing of comment sections of Reddit and HN is a more efficient way to stay up-to-date on the world events than actually reading the articles.
raleighm 9y ago
Yeah, headings merely referencing Updike novels in an article about a patent troll is an annoyance I didn't expect today.

bubblethink 9y ago

The recent WaPo article about Russian interference in the US election where stuff arrived in envelopes with top secret written on them, and people huddling around it, was also off putting.

Zyst 9y ago

I like it. I really enjoy the overly dramatic and/or expositional style is something I greatly enjoy in general.

xattt 9y ago

It's emulating the style of writing that Wired pioneered in tech. When Joe Blow tries their hand at it, it's overdone and nuances that makes it great are in all the wrong places.

nstart 9y ago

It's a matter of personal taste. The only cautionary advice to writers who employ this style would be to tell them that not all exaggerations are equal. Sitting behind the desk when the email came in is a harmless exaggeration. It doesn't matter if he was really in bed or at dinner. The dramatic embellishment does little or nothing to change the facts or perceptions in a meaningful way. If it's ok, we can point to NYT's article on Trump and his aides from some time ago. Aides stumbling in the darkness unable to find light switches type line. Something like that is damaging and deserves proof before writing. Doesn't matter which way you lean, that's dangerous waters since that's been written with an intent to alter perceptions in a meaningful way. To cast a group of people as confused and befuddled. If this article (the TC cloudflare one) was to write about the patent trolls in a dramatic style that vilified them, that too would be wrong. Something like "In the photo, Freeman can be seen standing on a bridge with a wry smile as if imagining the future in which the lawyers control the game." Would be very dangerous and should not be encouraged. Thankfully this article seems to follow a simple expositional style (somewhat third person narrative of cloudflare's perspective) with a little droplet of drama that just enhances the story rather than manipulating perceptions or reality.

mnm1 9y ago

Since you asked ... As both a writer and reader, I fucking hate it. I think it's fucking piss-poor writing by journalists who don't know how to be journalists and don't even know how to write an article, all in the name of attracting simple-minded readers with a one of the lamest prose techniques possible. I'm here to read an article about patents. I'm not interested in the opening few paragraphs of a bad novel. If I wanted to read a bad novel, I'd pick up a bad novel. If these "journalists" want to write a novel, then they should do that and stop writing "journalism" articles. This is one of the worst scourges of online "journalism" and frankly, I'm tired of having to skip the first few paragraphs of every article because I don't want to read some fucking stupid little story over and over again and want to get to the content. What ever happened to traditional journalism, where the facts are laid out at the top and the details come in later? It seems that "journalism" nowadays can't even get that right. If they want to put a stupid story, at least put it at the end where it belongs, where few or none will read it. You could say this is a little pet peeve of mine. Thanks for asking.

TeMPOraL 9y ago
The reason is simple - they (people responsible for the form of articles, which may not always include the original journalist) don't care about you. They're not here to deliver you value. They're here to extract value from you. My rule of thumb is simple: I look at a service and ask myself, is what I see a good, efficient way to deliver the value the service says it delivers? If the answer is no, I know that they don't give a shit about delivering value, they're only there to extract it. In the concrete example of journalism: inverted pyramid, TL;DR of the facts at the top, no useless prose - those are signs of trying to deliver value. Prose, multi-page articles, ads, auto-playing videos (be it ads or "content") - those are signs they don't give a shit about you. And yes, some may say that companies seek balance between profitability and value. Sure, maybe companies think they do that. But the choices they make matter. If they're making money literally on wasting my time, the most precious resource any human being has, then I don't want to have anything to do with them. Which is why I don't read the news. The state of the journalism is so bad here, that casual browsing of comment sections of Reddit and HN is a more efficient way to stay up-to-date on the world events than actually reading the articles.

raleighm 9y ago

Yeah, headings merely referencing Updike novels in an article about a patent troll is an annoyance I didn't expect today.