8 ms·

This seems like a perfect example of someone who needs to read pg’s essay “write like you talk”: http://paulgraham.com/talk.html http://paulgraham.com/talk.html

This seems like a perfect example of someone who needs to read pg’s essay “write like you talk”: http://paulgraham.com/talk.html http://paulgraham.com/talk.html I don’t get an intelligence vibe from this style of writing - it mostly just sets off my bullshit alarms.

ohaideredevs 8y ago
I understand where you are coming from, but this guy came off as intelligent to me DESPITE all the alarms going of. That's not to say he wasn't trolling.
mikeash 8y ago
That’s good advice but it’s also highly dependent on culture and time. It’s food advice because the English-speaking culture of today values writing that sounds like speech. It may not have been good advice at all for someone writing in 1920s France. And beyond that, it’s really hard to apply this sort of advice to a translation.
- fossuser 8y ago
  I’d argue it’s good advice for people that value clarity over sounding smart. I’d guess there were people that valued this in most times and cultures.
  - foldr 8y ago
    The quoted text isn't at all unclear (especially taking into consideration the fact that it's a translation).
    - fossuser 8y ago
      The quoted text is verbose and tedious. It uses a lot of complex words to convey little information, both of these things negatively affect clarity. You may have a preference for purple prose, but it's silly to pretend that the quoted text is clear. I'm suspicious when people write like that because it can be used to hide bad reasoning behind unnecessarily complex word choice and sentence structure. If you care about sharing ideas it's better to write simply.
      - foldr 8y ago
        That's a very absolutist take on it. I genuinely don't find the text difficult to read or light on information. In fact I think it makes a very interesting point. You've also got to take into account that it's a translation of a French text written almost 100 years ago. > If you care about sharing ideas it's better to write simply. That's good advice if you're writing blog posts in 2019 with the goal of driving traffic to your site. And why should any writer aspire to a higher goal than that?
      - the_af 8y ago
        Can you point to an example of purple prose in the text? I'm curious because I don't see any.
      - mikeash 8y ago
        Someone in another time and place may well find complex word choice and sentence structure easiest to understand in written form, and is wary of writing that uses plain language because it can be used to hide bad reasoning behind simple-sounding words and sentence structure. For you, and the culture you’re in, what you say is true. It is far from universal.
        fossuser 8y ago
        I guess I don’t agree. I’d be willing to bet that simpler is generally easier to understand than complex. Maybe some exceptions exist, but I’d suspect they’d be outliers.
        mikeash 8y ago
        How much do you suppose a person would get out of Up Goer Five if they didn’t already know about Apollo and such?
        fossuser 8y ago
        That’s fair - at the extreme end it is probably harder to understand. Though going back to the first comment it’s also not how people talk.
  - phillipcarter 8y ago
    Writing that is intentionally eloquent, clever, intricate, etc. isn't inherently bad and most certainly need not adhere to the gospel of some arbitrary Venture Capitalist in silicon valley. If your goal is to communicate your company or product; sure, keep it simple. But that's not everyone's goals, irrespective of culture or time period.
- dpark 8y ago
  Yes and no. It’s valid that values change and perhaps in the past this sort of dense, self-important prose was the preferred way to write. No doubt many even today would say it sounds more intelligent or educated. However, if the goal is to write in a legible, understandable, comprehensible way, then this has never been a good way to do that. (Indeed, many scholarly works are still written this way, and they are far less accessible as a result. People might feel smarter for reading them but they probably get less from them than if they were written simply.) As for the translation, I’m not clear when this was actually translated. The stuff I’ve found indicates a publishing date if 1999. If that’s accurate (and it well may not be) then I think it’s entirely reasonable to expect translators to write easy-to-read text in a modern style. I understand the desire to carry the “spirit” of the work through the translation, but I’m not sure that’s what’s at fault when translations read this way. I wonder if translators enamored with the work are trying to use difficult phrasing to make it seem more impressive or educated. I also wonder if sometimes native sentence structure is being replicated in English, where it comes off try-hard when it’s really just an awkward transliteration.
- gunnihinn 8y ago
  > It’s food advice because the English-speaking culture of today values writing that sounds like speech. And lord forbid us for writing in a way or about subjects that don't please as much of the potential readers as possible. They might not click on our data-mined ads if we did. The fucks.
- pthomas551 8y ago
  Yeah, written English corresponds to spoken English more than in a lot of other languages, where the vocabulary and grammar can vary considerably between the written and spoken word.
  - the_af 8y ago
    > written English corresponds to spoken English more than in a lot of other languages Except for pronunciation! ;)
gp7 8y ago
When you write like this a lot, you end up talking like it, too.
coldtea 8y ago
You should use those alarms on PG's writings: https://idlewords.com/2005/04/dabblers_and_blowhards.htm https://idlewords.com/2005/04/dabblers_and_blowhards.htm As for the particular author, he was born in another culture (not all cultures appreciate the matter-of-factness as-you-talk anglo-saxon style of writing, many prominent European writers have called it "barbaric" and "only good for business"). He was also born in a whole other era.
- dpark 8y ago
  > many prominent European writers have called it "barbaric" and "only good for business" Snobs in general tend to look down on people who don’t place value on pomposity for its own sake.
  - foldr 8y ago
    Writing style is a matter of taste. The blunt "as spoken" style is just as much an affect as some of its more flowery alternatives.
    - dpark 8y ago
      I'm assuming you're using "an affect" in the sense of "an affectation" or "affected" here, in which case, no. Plainness, simplicity, straightforwardness are words that would describe "as spoken" writing. They are also literally antonyms of "affect" in this context, which would mean pretentiousness, artificiality, pomposity.
      - foldr 8y ago
        I just mean that there's nothing inherently sincere about plainness and simplicity. Some people adopt a plain and simple style disingenuously, and others write in a more flowery style out of a genuine aesthetic motive. In French, 100 years ago, the kind of style you're advocating would have been the "marked" case. That is, readers would probably have attributed disingenuous motives to someone who chose to write a history book in the style of spoken conversation.
EliRivers 8y ago
Having read the article, I disagree. What "style" of writing? The sentences aren't excessive, the language is all fairly common (the author even takes pleasure in simplifying "scramasax", clearly inviting us to take pleasure in it as well). What's wrong with it? It's not meant to be a list of purely literal facts. It's entertaining and a pleasure to read. As for Paul Graham's opinion piece; well, that's just silly. Something written is inherently different to something spoken; they have different strengths, different attributes, different purposes and, should they have the same goal, can best achieve that goal in different ways. Why choose to discard the strengths of the written?
- dpark 8y ago
  Fossuser’s criticism was not directed at the article at all. It was directed at the Fulcanelli quote given by ohaideredevs. The Dwellings if Philosophers (as translated) starts out with “Paradoxical in its manifestations, disconcerting in its signs, the Middle Ages proposes to the sagacity of its admirers the resolution of a singular misconception.” This says so little with such absurd wording that it’s almost word soup.
  - topynate 8y ago
    The only phrase which really is "too French" here is "proposes to the sagacity of its admirers". (It's not wrong, but not many English speakers still use "propose" in its sense of "set before someone as a goal".) Other than that, I see a well-balanced sentence in which every word has a purpose – but "well-balanced" versus "straight-forward" is a matter of taste.
    - dpark 8y ago
      Every time I read that sentence I can't help but picture some huckster standing on a soap box at an intersection in an impoverished neighborhood in the 30s. It's so clearly crafted to impress rather than inform that I can't help but feel a sales pitch is coming.
      - 8y ago
selimthegrim 8y ago
Wait until you get ahold of Fomenko
hluska 8y ago
I can’t claim to be a big fan of Fulcanelli’s, but in the same text, he talked about how philosophers would communicate with ciphers. I have absolutely no proof of this, but wouldn’t put it above Fulcanelli to embed coded messages in his writing, or to write in a way that suggests a cipher. Again, I have no proof, other than that he fancied himself the man who rediscovered alchemy in the 20th century and, since many alchemists embedded codes in their writing, I can see him playing the part.
- ohaideredevs 8y ago
  It's a common theme - that it's all a very clever cipher - that the metals, planet alignments, etc are either code for chemical reactions or "transformations of the soul." I got into it as a teenager, but called it quits at some point, because while Fulcanelli is vague, he is at least a competent human being. That much can't be said for the authors of most "alchemical", and similar, texts. Also, it's funny to track the biographies of the most commonly known Occultists; Crowley, Dee, Parsons - all accomplished before they got into the occult, and declining after.
maldusiecle 8y ago
There are people who talk like that. What's your problem with it in particular? I don't find any of its sentences especially difficult to parse.
colechristensen 8y ago
First, it is a century old translation from French. What might sound perfectly normal in French might sound silly in English if you do a literal translation. Matching the tone between languages might significantly change the message. For example, to use the English versions of French words... To say "I'm sorry" in French you say "I am desolate" Talking about a broken phone or a stomach ache you would say they are deranged. Much of French vocabulary came into English but very often with some distance in meanings and usage. Often in translating you have the option to use exactly the same word with maybe a small spelling change, but you end up sounding ridiculous because of the shift in meaning or intensity. Second, essentially what boils down to shaming people for not communicating the way you want is wrong. Not that I am saying you are directly or intentionally harassing someone, but (despite my distaste for how it is often used) things like this could be called microaggressions, making people uncomfortable using their language. I experienced a lot of that growing up. In a place far from cities where people were generally less educated (and those that were left to find jobs) and I read a lot. I still struggle with the unconscious bias that people don't want to hear what I have to say or wouldn't understand or would respond with discouraging things. Looking back, I'm not trying to say you are doing anything particularly negative, BUT be careful. Diversity can come in lots of ways, using language a little differently is one of them, and a little understanding (like how hundred year translations from French are going to sound a little … florid) helps with perspective.
- javert 8y ago
  > what boils down to shaming people for not communicating the way you want is wrong Which is exactly what the second half of your post is, but moreso than the person you are criticizing. There is no point in having a discussion board if people are going to be criticized because something they said with sincerity might offend somebody. That is the nature of speech.
  - sls 8y ago
    The second half of his post is not a critique of how the point to which he responds was communicated, but of the point itself. He's saying that the message "people shouldn't write like that" is problematic and flawed, not that it itself shouldn't have been written like it was. As to your second point, that any speech at all might offend someone so there's no point in drawing attention to that fact, on the contrary, the commenter is actually making a very concrete point. He is talking about a very specific thing, that this prescriptivism about writing style alienates and turns away a lot of people that could otherwise make valuable contributions. It's not a general statement that any statement might offend somebody, but a highly targeted examination of the consequences of such speech policing.
byproxy 8y ago
I think I'd rather talk like I write. That is, if I can improve my writing significantly...
the_af 8y ago
What is specifically triggering your bullshit alarms? I'm intrigued. I like to think my own bs alarms are very sensitive, but in this particular case they remain silent; the prose seems only mildly flowery to me, and no assertion seems like pseudoscience or quakery.
dragonwriter 8y ago
PG’s essay is good advice for modern American culture when addressing what it is explicitly framed as being for: maximizing the number of people who will read through your writing. It may not be ideal for other goals, including maximizing utility of your work (or persuasiveness z for persuasive writing) to people who do read it. Different forms of expression between writing and speech, which differences are also different by purposes and intended audience of the writing, have evolved for real reasons.
dang 8y ago
We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19741077 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19741077 and marked it off-topic.

ohaideredevs 8y ago

I understand where you are coming from, but this guy came off as intelligent to me DESPITE all the alarms going of. That's not to say he wasn't trolling.

mikeash 8y ago

That’s good advice but it’s also highly dependent on culture and time. It’s food advice because the English-speaking culture of today values writing that sounds like speech. It may not have been good advice at all for someone writing in 1920s France. And beyond that, it’s really hard to apply this sort of advice to a translation.

fossuser 8y ago
I’d argue it’s good advice for people that value clarity over sounding smart. I’d guess there were people that valued this in most times and cultures.
- foldr 8y ago
  The quoted text isn't at all unclear (especially taking into consideration the fact that it's a translation).
  - fossuser 8y ago
    The quoted text is verbose and tedious. It uses a lot of complex words to convey little information, both of these things negatively affect clarity. You may have a preference for purple prose, but it's silly to pretend that the quoted text is clear. I'm suspicious when people write like that because it can be used to hide bad reasoning behind unnecessarily complex word choice and sentence structure. If you care about sharing ideas it's better to write simply.
    - foldr 8y ago
      That's a very absolutist take on it. I genuinely don't find the text difficult to read or light on information. In fact I think it makes a very interesting point. You've also got to take into account that it's a translation of a French text written almost 100 years ago. > If you care about sharing ideas it's better to write simply. That's good advice if you're writing blog posts in 2019 with the goal of driving traffic to your site. And why should any writer aspire to a higher goal than that?
    - the_af 8y ago
      Can you point to an example of purple prose in the text? I'm curious because I don't see any.
    - mikeash 8y ago
      Someone in another time and place may well find complex word choice and sentence structure easiest to understand in written form, and is wary of writing that uses plain language because it can be used to hide bad reasoning behind simple-sounding words and sentence structure. For you, and the culture you’re in, what you say is true. It is far from universal.
      - fossuser 8y ago
        I guess I don’t agree. I’d be willing to bet that simpler is generally easier to understand than complex. Maybe some exceptions exist, but I’d suspect they’d be outliers.
        mikeash 8y ago
        How much do you suppose a person would get out of Up Goer Five if they didn’t already know about Apollo and such?
        fossuser 8y ago
        That’s fair - at the extreme end it is probably harder to understand. Though going back to the first comment it’s also not how people talk.
- phillipcarter 8y ago
  Writing that is intentionally eloquent, clever, intricate, etc. isn't inherently bad and most certainly need not adhere to the gospel of some arbitrary Venture Capitalist in silicon valley. If your goal is to communicate your company or product; sure, keep it simple. But that's not everyone's goals, irrespective of culture or time period.
dpark 8y ago
Yes and no. It’s valid that values change and perhaps in the past this sort of dense, self-important prose was the preferred way to write. No doubt many even today would say it sounds more intelligent or educated. However, if the goal is to write in a legible, understandable, comprehensible way, then this has never been a good way to do that. (Indeed, many scholarly works are still written this way, and they are far less accessible as a result. People might feel smarter for reading them but they probably get less from them than if they were written simply.) As for the translation, I’m not clear when this was actually translated. The stuff I’ve found indicates a publishing date if 1999. If that’s accurate (and it well may not be) then I think it’s entirely reasonable to expect translators to write easy-to-read text in a modern style. I understand the desire to carry the “spirit” of the work through the translation, but I’m not sure that’s what’s at fault when translations read this way. I wonder if translators enamored with the work are trying to use difficult phrasing to make it seem more impressive or educated. I also wonder if sometimes native sentence structure is being replicated in English, where it comes off try-hard when it’s really just an awkward transliteration.
gunnihinn 8y ago
> It’s food advice because the English-speaking culture of today values writing that sounds like speech. And lord forbid us for writing in a way or about subjects that don't please as much of the potential readers as possible. They might not click on our data-mined ads if we did. The fucks.
pthomas551 8y ago
Yeah, written English corresponds to spoken English more than in a lot of other languages, where the vocabulary and grammar can vary considerably between the written and spoken word.
- the_af 8y ago
  > written English corresponds to spoken English more than in a lot of other languages Except for pronunciation! ;)

gp7 8y ago

When you write like this a lot, you end up talking like it, too.

coldtea 8y ago

You should use those alarms on PG's writings: https://idlewords.com/2005/04/dabblers_and_blowhards.htm https://idlewords.com/2005/04/dabblers_and_blowhards.htm As for the particular author, he was born in another culture (not all cultures appreciate the matter-of-factness as-you-talk anglo-saxon style of writing, many prominent European writers have called it "barbaric" and "only good for business"). He was also born in a whole other era.

dpark 8y ago
> many prominent European writers have called it "barbaric" and "only good for business" Snobs in general tend to look down on people who don’t place value on pomposity for its own sake.
- foldr 8y ago
  Writing style is a matter of taste. The blunt "as spoken" style is just as much an affect as some of its more flowery alternatives.
  - dpark 8y ago
    I'm assuming you're using "an affect" in the sense of "an affectation" or "affected" here, in which case, no. Plainness, simplicity, straightforwardness are words that would describe "as spoken" writing. They are also literally antonyms of "affect" in this context, which would mean pretentiousness, artificiality, pomposity.
    - foldr 8y ago
      I just mean that there's nothing inherently sincere about plainness and simplicity. Some people adopt a plain and simple style disingenuously, and others write in a more flowery style out of a genuine aesthetic motive. In French, 100 years ago, the kind of style you're advocating would have been the "marked" case. That is, readers would probably have attributed disingenuous motives to someone who chose to write a history book in the style of spoken conversation.

EliRivers 8y ago

Having read the article, I disagree. What "style" of writing? The sentences aren't excessive, the language is all fairly common (the author even takes pleasure in simplifying "scramasax", clearly inviting us to take pleasure in it as well). What's wrong with it? It's not meant to be a list of purely literal facts. It's entertaining and a pleasure to read. As for Paul Graham's opinion piece; well, that's just silly. Something written is inherently different to something spoken; they have different strengths, different attributes, different purposes and, should they have the same goal, can best achieve that goal in different ways. Why choose to discard the strengths of the written?

dpark 8y ago
Fossuser’s criticism was not directed at the article at all. It was directed at the Fulcanelli quote given by ohaideredevs. The Dwellings if Philosophers (as translated) starts out with “Paradoxical in its manifestations, disconcerting in its signs, the Middle Ages proposes to the sagacity of its admirers the resolution of a singular misconception.” This says so little with such absurd wording that it’s almost word soup.
- topynate 8y ago
  The only phrase which really is "too French" here is "proposes to the sagacity of its admirers". (It's not wrong, but not many English speakers still use "propose" in its sense of "set before someone as a goal".) Other than that, I see a well-balanced sentence in which every word has a purpose – but "well-balanced" versus "straight-forward" is a matter of taste.
  - dpark 8y ago
    Every time I read that sentence I can't help but picture some huckster standing on a soap box at an intersection in an impoverished neighborhood in the 30s. It's so clearly crafted to impress rather than inform that I can't help but feel a sales pitch is coming.
    - 8y ago

selimthegrim 8y ago

Wait until you get ahold of Fomenko

hluska 8y ago

I can’t claim to be a big fan of Fulcanelli’s, but in the same text, he talked about how philosophers would communicate with ciphers. I have absolutely no proof of this, but wouldn’t put it above Fulcanelli to embed coded messages in his writing, or to write in a way that suggests a cipher. Again, I have no proof, other than that he fancied himself the man who rediscovered alchemy in the 20th century and, since many alchemists embedded codes in their writing, I can see him playing the part.

ohaideredevs 8y ago
It's a common theme - that it's all a very clever cipher - that the metals, planet alignments, etc are either code for chemical reactions or "transformations of the soul." I got into it as a teenager, but called it quits at some point, because while Fulcanelli is vague, he is at least a competent human being. That much can't be said for the authors of most "alchemical", and similar, texts. Also, it's funny to track the biographies of the most commonly known Occultists; Crowley, Dee, Parsons - all accomplished before they got into the occult, and declining after.

maldusiecle 8y ago

There are people who talk like that. What's your problem with it in particular? I don't find any of its sentences especially difficult to parse.

colechristensen 8y ago

First, it is a century old translation from French. What might sound perfectly normal in French might sound silly in English if you do a literal translation. Matching the tone between languages might significantly change the message. For example, to use the English versions of French words... To say "I'm sorry" in French you say "I am desolate" Talking about a broken phone or a stomach ache you would say they are deranged. Much of French vocabulary came into English but very often with some distance in meanings and usage. Often in translating you have the option to use exactly the same word with maybe a small spelling change, but you end up sounding ridiculous because of the shift in meaning or intensity. Second, essentially what boils down to shaming people for not communicating the way you want is wrong. Not that I am saying you are directly or intentionally harassing someone, but (despite my distaste for how it is often used) things like this could be called microaggressions, making people uncomfortable using their language. I experienced a lot of that growing up. In a place far from cities where people were generally less educated (and those that were left to find jobs) and I read a lot. I still struggle with the unconscious bias that people don't want to hear what I have to say or wouldn't understand or would respond with discouraging things. Looking back, I'm not trying to say you are doing anything particularly negative, BUT be careful. Diversity can come in lots of ways, using language a little differently is one of them, and a little understanding (like how hundred year translations from French are going to sound a little … florid) helps with perspective.

javert 8y ago
> what boils down to shaming people for not communicating the way you want is wrong Which is exactly what the second half of your post is, but moreso than the person you are criticizing. There is no point in having a discussion board if people are going to be criticized because something they said with sincerity might offend somebody. That is the nature of speech.
- sls 8y ago
  The second half of his post is not a critique of how the point to which he responds was communicated, but of the point itself. He's saying that the message "people shouldn't write like that" is problematic and flawed, not that it itself shouldn't have been written like it was. As to your second point, that any speech at all might offend someone so there's no point in drawing attention to that fact, on the contrary, the commenter is actually making a very concrete point. He is talking about a very specific thing, that this prescriptivism about writing style alienates and turns away a lot of people that could otherwise make valuable contributions. It's not a general statement that any statement might offend somebody, but a highly targeted examination of the consequences of such speech policing.

byproxy 8y ago

I think I'd rather talk like I write. That is, if I can improve my writing significantly...

the_af 8y ago

What is specifically triggering your bullshit alarms? I'm intrigued. I like to think my own bs alarms are very sensitive, but in this particular case they remain silent; the prose seems only mildly flowery to me, and no assertion seems like pseudoscience or quakery.

dragonwriter 8y ago

PG’s essay is good advice for modern American culture when addressing what it is explicitly framed as being for: maximizing the number of people who will read through your writing. It may not be ideal for other goals, including maximizing utility of your work (or persuasiveness z for persuasive writing) to people who do read it. Different forms of expression between writing and speech, which differences are also different by purposes and intended audience of the writing, have evolved for real reasons.

dang 8y ago

We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19741077 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19741077 and marked it off-topic.