5 ms·

>They said the reader wants to see an expert talking, as if experts never make mistakes or need to shift from one tact to another. Your editor was very fucking

>They said the reader wants to see an expert talking, as if experts never make mistakes or need to shift from one tact to another. Your editor was very fucking wrong.

natefox 6y ago
So, so wrong. How did (s)he think experts get so good? Isn't the phrase `the master has failed more times than the apprentice has even tried` well known for a reason?
- emerongi 6y ago
  It obviously depends on the type of the book and the reader's expectations. It just might not have been the type of book where you write about things like that.
  - ohyeshedid 6y ago
    >It just might not have been the type of book where you write about things like that. I think that'd be more of the author's choice, instead of the editor.
- a1369209993 6y ago
  > the master has failed more times than the apprentice has even tried I've never actually heard that one before, but it's so very, very true.
gridlockd 6y ago
> Your editor was very fucking wrong. The editor is completely right in what they were saying. You just want them to be wrong, because you'd prefer to live in the fantasy world where they are wrong. Let's say you go to get a surgery. You don't want the doctor to tell you about all the times they fucked up and what the awful consequences were. It doesn't matter that they're probably a better surgeon now, having learned from their mistakes. Psychologically, you need that person with the sharp tool poking around inside your body to be a superhuman. To a lesser degree, the same is true for any expert. Of course everybody makes mistakes. Notice the de-personalization in the word "everybody". You can talk about the mistakes everybody makes, or those ones that many people make. If you talk about your own mistakes however, you lose the superhuman status. There may be a few situations where that somehow helps you, but not when you want to sell books.
- fnord123 6y ago
  I wonder if we're on the same page. Should a book on a programming language discuss compilation errors and how to interpret them? Should a book like Effective C++ (afaik the most popular series of books on C++) exist?
  - gridlockd 6y ago
    The answer (yes) is already in my reply, in the second paragraph.
- sokoloff 6y ago
  I sure do want that surgeon to have been presented/instructed on the common ways that surgeons before them have made mistakes and how to avoid or overcome them. That they won’t tell me (the patient) is quite a different question from whether they got the material from someone more experienced in their primary or continuing medical education.
  - gridlockd 6y ago
    The situation is different, the psychological effect is not.
- justinclift 6y ago
  > Let's say you go to get a surgery. Shouldn't that be more like "Let's say you're learning to be a surgeon."? For that situation, the person they're learning from discussing problems they hit and how they solved them does sound like it would be very useful.
  - gridlockd 6y ago
    > Shouldn't that be more like "Let's say you're learning to be a surgeon."? No. It is an exaggerated example, because I am illustrating a psychological effect. The point is that you are consulting an expert, and you don't want that expert to tell you about all their mistakes, because your mind is now occupied with doubting that expert. It's not rational. > For that situation, the person they're learning from discussing problems they hit and how they solved them does sound like it would be very useful. It's useful to present common mistakes, but mentioning who made the mistake is both irrelevant and damaging.
xrd 6y ago
Obviously, I agree with you! I also think this is the way the majority of tech books are written. Can you think of another where the author goes from mistake to mistake and then finally gets it right? I believe there is a space in tech writing for this kind of writing, but it is not something traditional book publishers believe. This was an O'Reilly book by the way, with really good editors and a really good editoral process. That editor was right most of the time, IMHO.
- fnord123 6y ago
  >Can you think of another where the author goes from mistake to mistake and then finally gets it right? Not a book, but Raymond Hettinger often presents in this way and it's fantastic: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wf-BqAjZb8M https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wf-BqAjZb8M
- drvdevd 6y ago
  Most (in-depth, technical) security books follow this sort of thought process- I think. “A big hunters diary” comes to mind.
- fnord123 6y ago
  Ignition! A history of liquid rocket propellants. Little Lisper, Little Scheme is a conversation style that discusses a lot of false starts. {Coders|Founders} at Work has a lot of frank talk about early mistakes people make and their pivots.
drvdevd 6y ago
Agreed. The entire expertise of programming is based on the willingness to find these sorts of issues and fix them. Over and over, for your entire career.
Leonid99 6y ago
Most books frame this as "one common mistake is ...". I always understood this phrase to mean that the author has personally made this mistake more than once.

>They said the reader wants to see an expert talking, as if experts never make mistakes or need to shift from one tact to another. Your editor was very fucking wrong.

natefox 6y ago

So, so wrong. How did (s)he think experts get so good? Isn't the phrase `the master has failed more times than the apprentice has even tried` well known for a reason?

emerongi 6y ago
It obviously depends on the type of the book and the reader's expectations. It just might not have been the type of book where you write about things like that.
- ohyeshedid 6y ago
  >It just might not have been the type of book where you write about things like that. I think that'd be more of the author's choice, instead of the editor.
a1369209993 6y ago
> the master has failed more times than the apprentice has even tried I've never actually heard that one before, but it's so very, very true.

gridlockd 6y ago

> Your editor was very fucking wrong. The editor is completely right in what they were saying. You just want them to be wrong, because you'd prefer to live in the fantasy world where they are wrong. Let's say you go to get a surgery. You don't want the doctor to tell you about all the times they fucked up and what the awful consequences were. It doesn't matter that they're probably a better surgeon now, having learned from their mistakes. Psychologically, you need that person with the sharp tool poking around inside your body to be a superhuman. To a lesser degree, the same is true for any expert. Of course everybody makes mistakes. Notice the de-personalization in the word "everybody". You can talk about the mistakes everybody makes, or those ones that many people make. If you talk about your own mistakes however, you lose the superhuman status. There may be a few situations where that somehow helps you, but not when you want to sell books.

fnord123 6y ago
I wonder if we're on the same page. Should a book on a programming language discuss compilation errors and how to interpret them? Should a book like Effective C++ (afaik the most popular series of books on C++) exist?
- gridlockd 6y ago
  The answer (yes) is already in my reply, in the second paragraph.
sokoloff 6y ago
I sure do want that surgeon to have been presented/instructed on the common ways that surgeons before them have made mistakes and how to avoid or overcome them. That they won’t tell me (the patient) is quite a different question from whether they got the material from someone more experienced in their primary or continuing medical education.
- gridlockd 6y ago
  The situation is different, the psychological effect is not.
justinclift 6y ago
> Let's say you go to get a surgery. Shouldn't that be more like "Let's say you're learning to be a surgeon."? For that situation, the person they're learning from discussing problems they hit and how they solved them does sound like it would be very useful.
- gridlockd 6y ago
  > Shouldn't that be more like "Let's say you're learning to be a surgeon."? No. It is an exaggerated example, because I am illustrating a psychological effect. The point is that you are consulting an expert, and you don't want that expert to tell you about all their mistakes, because your mind is now occupied with doubting that expert. It's not rational. > For that situation, the person they're learning from discussing problems they hit and how they solved them does sound like it would be very useful. It's useful to present common mistakes, but mentioning who made the mistake is both irrelevant and damaging.

xrd 6y ago

Obviously, I agree with you! I also think this is the way the majority of tech books are written. Can you think of another where the author goes from mistake to mistake and then finally gets it right? I believe there is a space in tech writing for this kind of writing, but it is not something traditional book publishers believe. This was an O'Reilly book by the way, with really good editors and a really good editoral process. That editor was right most of the time, IMHO.

fnord123 6y ago
>Can you think of another where the author goes from mistake to mistake and then finally gets it right? Not a book, but Raymond Hettinger often presents in this way and it's fantastic: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wf-BqAjZb8M https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wf-BqAjZb8M
drvdevd 6y ago
Most (in-depth, technical) security books follow this sort of thought process- I think. “A big hunters diary” comes to mind.
fnord123 6y ago
Ignition! A history of liquid rocket propellants. Little Lisper, Little Scheme is a conversation style that discusses a lot of false starts. {Coders|Founders} at Work has a lot of frank talk about early mistakes people make and their pivots.

drvdevd 6y ago

Agreed. The entire expertise of programming is based on the willingness to find these sorts of issues and fix them. Over and over, for your entire career.

Leonid99 6y ago

Most books frame this as "one common mistake is ...". I always understood this phrase to mean that the author has personally made this mistake more than once.