25 ms·
Write Simply
- bradezone 6y agoAn alternative POV: https://whatiscalledthinking.substack.com/p/is-precise-language-always-good https://whatiscalledthinking.substack.com/p/is-precise-langu...
- Fiveplus 6y ago>That's why some people write that way, to conceal the fact that they have nothing to say. That's a great point.
- cainxinth 6y agoCopywriter here. Sometimes the client gives me the barest thread of a topic, some minor, new product or service or partnership for them, something that could be covered comprehensively in 300 words... and then they say they want a 1000+ word blog post on it (for SEO purposes). That article is going to end up being mostly fluff, and there’s not much I can do about it. Sure, I can work in some background and play up the implications of the news, but really, it’s just content for content’s sake, so that they can stay in their customers’ feeds. And, just for the record, those type of articles are not my forte or preference, but are an unavoidable reality in my line of work.
- amackera 6y agoSounds like your clients might benefit from reading this essay :P
- throwawaygh 6y agoThe text is being optimized for an algorithmic reader, not a human reader. For this essay to make any difference to OP, Google's search engineers would have to read it.
- K0nserv 6y agoOn Writing Well[0] is one of the best books I've read. I'd recommended it to anyone who wants to improve their writing. 0: https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/53343.On_Writing_Well https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/53343.On_Writing_Well
- eatonphil 6y agoI agree. It is an excellent book that will teach you to use fewer and simpler words. I think it makes a lot of sense in technical and business writing. Aside from knowing this though the most effective thing I've learned to do is to keep re-reading what I wrote. Reorganize phrases to keep connected thoughts nearby in text. In English you have a lot of freedom to put phrases all over the place in a sentence. When I write I very rarely put all the connected phrases next to each other in the first pass. But I guess I'd generalize that to say: taking the time to re-read what you wrote and edit it actually makes a big difference. It took a lot of shitty writing and overcoming laziness in school before I learned this lesson.
- tablatom 6y agoThe first review on that page[1] is a well argued counterpoint to Graham's essay. Getting your ideas understood is often only one part of what you're trying to achieve. If that really is your only goal, then I agree, the simpler the better. [1] https://www.goodreads.com/review/show/755379555?book_show_action=true https://www.goodreads.com/review/show/755379555?book_show_ac...
- ycombinete 6y agoHaving read a fair amount of Zizek and some Foucault I have to agree. Obfuscation can be just as useful as clarity.
- andy_ppp 6y agoCan you explain that? As an engineer I think generally anything that can be done more simply is nearly always better.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- meagher 6y agoAnother piece of writing advice: Never use adverbs.
- agustif 6y ago> The other reason my writing ends up being simple is the way I do it. I write the first draft fast, then spend days editing it, trying to get everything just right. Much of this editing is cutting, and that makes simple writing even simpler. ruthless editing seems a pretty big factor in the writing well result.
- mromanuk 6y agoAchieving simplicity is hard. Allow me to explain, with a software analogy, too many times "customers" or users wants a "simple" solution, wrongly expecting that a simple final product was made with a simple implementation, which is not the case at all. It's the opposite. I would expect the same process about writing, a final and concise essay requires tons of work, removing a word and replacing it with a common alternative and rewording phrases to make it simpler (for the reader). I understand Paul statement as "use a limited and common vocabulary" rather than complex words and sentences with fluff.
- hirundo 6y ago"If I had more time, I would have written a shorter letter." -- Blaise Pascal https://quoteinvestigator.com/2012/04/28/shorter-letter/ https://quoteinvestigator.com/2012/04/28/shorter-letter/
- chrischapman 6y agoWow. Love this. Also, it seems like it could apply to software development, as in... "If I had more time, I would have written less code."
- nickthemagicman 6y ago"The greatest elegance is simplicity" - somebody
- voidhorse 6y ago“Easy reading is damn hard writing.“ — Nathaniel Hawthorne (apparently)* There’s definite value to simplicity in writing. At the same time, like all principles, people tend to run with the idea and misapply it. There are some cases in which your work demands a certain level of precision that’s only possible using complex words or jargon. Not to mention, writing that’s a little complicated can be a lot more fun! There are several novelists, essayists, and poets who are a joy to read not because they express their ideas as clearly and simply as possible, but because they manage linguistic acrobatics that make us realize there are ways to use language we never thought possible—often it takes some extra work to understand such output. *: Have never taken the time to verify this myself.
- kemiller2002 6y agoI believe the best piece of advice is, "Know your audience."
- tartoran 6y agoYes. And for wanting to expand that audience simpler writing is an advantage IMO
- xbar 6y agoI believe this is a piece of the best advice: 1. Who is your audience? 2. What do you want to tell them? 3. What do you want them to do? These are the Three Questions. My advice: answer them before you create a powerpoint, an email, an essay, a policy. They create a sharp tool for thought.
- hourislate 6y agoReading that paragraph, 20-30 percent could be removed. Reading for pleasure should be entertaining. Reading for knowledge should be simple/concise.
- hanniabu 6y ago> Reading for knowledge should be simple/concise It can be a difficult balance. You can provide a lot of information in a few bullet points, but there may also be a lot of contextual information left out that leaves more curious readers wondering "why is like this and not another way".
- nindalf 6y agoI think we all know that we should write simply, but not always what needs to be simplified in something we've written. I find http://hemingwayapp.com http://hemingwayapp.com to be useful here. I don't listen to all recommendations, but it helps me fix some mistakes I make often - using passive voice, unnecessary hedging etc.
- zozbot234 6y agoAs usual, xkcd is relevant: https://xkcd.com/547/ https://xkcd.com/547/
- jfk13 6y agoSo is Calvin and Hobbes, kinda... https://www.gocomics.com/calvinandhobbes/1993/02/11 https://www.gocomics.com/calvinandhobbes/1993/02/11
- selimthegrim 6y agoFollowing in on the original: https://www.gocomics.com/calvinandhobbes/1989/10/31 https://www.gocomics.com/calvinandhobbes/1989/10/31
- interleave 6y agoI remember seeing the replay of PG writing an essay[^1] back in 2009. To me, this was such a strong way to show (rather than tell) just _how_ hard writing really is. [^1] Here's the current link if you're interested so watch: http://byronm.com/13sentences.html http://byronm.com/13sentences.html (Thankfully re-discovered from one of PGs recent tweets: https://twitter.com/paulg/status/1365425470318272514 https://twitter.com/paulg/status/1365425470318272514)
- aabhay 6y agoI think there are two sources of confirmation bias here: 1. People on HN are already primed to appreciate this style of writing. Simple. Precise. Direct. It suits a technical literal mind to have less ambiguity and fewer flourishes. 2. On the web, where each individual piece of writing is not meant to last as long, the writing style has become more casual. Consider the difference between your average Medium article versus your average academic research paper. Both of these points considered, I disagree entirely with the premise. There can be value to dense, even perhaps enigmatic writing. I would say that the greatest works of English literature tend towards that direction (James Joyce, Thomas Pynchon, David Foster Wallace).
- nickthemagicman 6y agoYeah but the genre seems to matter. Fiction and poetry vs whatever type of writing blogging is.
- hc-taway 6y ago> Fiction and poetry vs whatever type of writing blogging is. Essayists, pamphleteers, and diarists (blogs), and aphorists (Twitter). Genres with centuries-long histories.
- raspasov 6y agoHow do you define "greatest"?
- runevault 6y agoAgreed. Simple writing is perfectly valid in the right time and place. Rich, dense writing also has a place and value. The real answer is understand what type of writing serves your intent and write with deliberate intent towards that style for that impact.
- leemcalilly 6y agoExactly.
- 6y ago
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- jeremy_wiebe 6y agoThis feels closely related Plain Language [1]. An editor I worked with pointed me to this concept. We were writing documentation for a framework my company was building. [1] https://www.plainlanguage.gov/guidelines/ https://www.plainlanguage.gov/guidelines/
- divbzero 6y agoThe UK government has similar guidelines for writing plain English. [1] [1]: https://www.gov.uk/guidance/content-design/writing-for-gov-uk https://www.gov.uk/guidance/content-design/writing-for-gov-u...
- HPsquared 6y agoConvoluted prose is the natural language equivalent of spaghetti code.
- foobarbecue 6y agotldr
- Tomte 6y agoMy standard recommendation for writing advice is Joseph M. Williams' "Style: Ten Lessons In Clarity And Grace"[1]. Another good one is George Gopen's "The Sense of Structure". It's less inspirational than Clarity and Grace, but it shows more hands-on how to construct sentences and paragraphs. [1] or "Lessons in Clarity and Grace" or "Toward Clarity and Grace" – they are all substantially the same book
- apples_oranges 6y agoPlease forward this to the people that write the TOS for software and websites.
- skrebbel 6y agoA related paper is the delightfully titled "Consequences of erudite vernacular utilized irrespective of necessity: problems with using long words needlessly"[0]. It won the 2006 Ig Nobel Prize in Literature but it could've won the Economy one just as well in my opinion. [0] https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/acp.1178 https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/acp.1178
- czierleyn 6y agoI think simplicity is overrated and often an excuse for dullness.
- davidivadavid 6y agoSeems like this whole essay argues for clarity rather than simplicity — probably a better goal to aim for, too. He opposes simple to "fancy", but the opposite of simple isn't just "fancy", that's, well, a simplification. The opposite of "simple" writing may be: "rich" writing, "complex" writing, none of which are particularly problematic for Graham's goal provided that they're paired with enough clarity. That "simple" writing lasts longer is disproved by many works of literature that have made their way to us through history, most of which, by the standard of this essay, could be considered complex. As someone with a modicum of experience in the philosophy of language, I must also say that I do not look kindly on people who take for granted that there even could be such a thing as a thought without language, a "pure idea", since for all we know such a thing has never been observed.
- haswell 6y ago> That "simple" writing lasts longer is disproved by many works of literature that have made their way to us through history, most of which, by the standard of this essay, could be considered complex. - Would that literature have been considered complex at the time it was written? How much of that perceived complexity is due to changing writing styles, education standards, etc? - Writing a book and writing a proposal for the next project/product have entirely different definitions of "lasting". Context matters greatly. > As someone with a modicum of experience in the philosophy of language, I must also say that I do not look kindly on people who take for granted that there even could be such a thing as a thought without language, a "pure idea", since for all we know such a thing has never been observed. This sentence is a good example of the kind of unnecessary complexity described by the essay. You seem to be saying that "pure ideas are not possible without language", but that's not clear in your writing. If your intent it to exclude people who do not have a "modicum of experience in the philosophy of language", I have to ask: why?
- davidivadavid 6y ago> - Would that literature have been considered complex at the time it was written? How much of that perceived complexity is due to changing writing styles, education standards, etc? Great question, can't say I'm able to answer it authoritatively. I would guess most works of literature, essays and speeches, even at the time they were produced, tend to be a fair bit more complex than what the average person is used to. Especially if they come from eras with lower literacy. > - Writing a book and writing a proposal for the next project/product have entirely different definitions of "lasting". Context matters greatly. It certainly does. > This sentence is a good example of the kind of unnecessary complexity described by the essay. It's a pretty simple sentence. What's tripping you up? > You seem to be saying that "pure ideas are not possible without language", but that's not clear in your writing. No. I'm saying that thinking "pure ideas devoid of any language" is a naive concept to anyone who's researched that topic a minimal amount. I wasn't flexing. > If your intent it to exclude people who do not have a "modicum of experience in the philosophy of language", I have to ask: why? That's not my intent at all. I'm providing context to my judgment. If that was my intent, I would have said: "If you don't have experience in the philosophy of language, don't write about this topic." Good thing is — I'm not a Nazi, so I tend not to do that kind of stuff.
- raspasov 6y agoTo check if a written sentence is truly simple, just ask yourself: "How would it sound if somebody spoke it out loud?" I've found that to be a very accurate way to check sentences for too much fluff. Complex sentences just sound "off" when spoken.
- gz5 6y agoymmv but the best advice i ever got in this area: 'write like you are speaking' depending on my purpose and audience, i will write the first draft and then deliver it verbally. at least for me, and i do tend to use far too many words in the first draft, that exercise leads to a much clearer second draft.
- williesleg 6y agoJust write like a needful. Hit all the keywords, make it look like you know even though you don't Don't make any sense, that'll make them read it all.
- teodorlu 6y agoIf this essay resonates with you, consider looking into plainenglish.co.uk. Here's a place to start: http://www.plainenglish.co.uk/punctuating-sentences.html http://www.plainenglish.co.uk/punctuating-sentences.html
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- keiferski 6y agoMeh. Reducing language to a mere communication tool also destroys much of its beauty, meaning, and ability to inspire or motivate us. I don't think it's a coincidence that the loss of interest in poetry has coincided with a general loss of respect for literary culture. I had this impression recently while reading the Akbarnama, which is a sort of court-approved biography of the Mughal Emperor Akbar. It was written by his Grand Vizier, the top political advisor, who was also a poet and translator. Indeed it would almost be unheard of for a high governmental official to not be deeply educated in aesthetic matters. In any case, what immediately struck me was how beautiful the writing itself was. A bit wordy, at times, but in no way simple. Just one line I wrote down from the introduction: Without the help of Speech, the inner world's capital could not be built, nor this evil outer world's civilization be conceived. When political leaders put together similar books today, they are inevitably written in the most simple, banal language possible in order to maximize "idea propagation" and book sales. History is all the worse for it. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Akbarnama https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Akbarnama
- dfxm12 6y agoThere's a difference in writing, like there's a difference in painting. Painting a house is different from painting the Mona Lisa. Writing a work instruction or standard operating procedure is different from writing a poem and both are different from writing pop fiction or non-fiction. You can optimize for meaning, optimize for beauty, or you can optimize for inspiration, but it's hard to get all of them, and this is not a skill that is easy to get. PG does not really explore that (natch), but that's a point to consider, nonetheless.
- keiferski 6y agoI took the objective of the essay to be "communicating ideas." There is certainly no reason why one can't write well and communicate their ideas at the same time. In fact, I'd argue that well-written ideas spread more quickly. Things like The Bible or The Qur'an would likely be far less influential if they were poorly written.
- 6y ago
- CivBase 6y agoI'd rather "write usefully" than "write simply". If a "fancy" word is more useful for getting my thoughts across, then I will use it. I think of "useful" language as a balance of precision, concision, and understandability. If I use terms that I don't expect my audience to understand, then my language not very "useful" even if it's the most precise and concise. Conversely, there's no reason for me to refrain from terms which I expect my audience to understand if using them makes my language more precise or concise.
- u678u 6y agoI agree, but it seems success is highly correlated with ability to bullsh*t. From school essays all the way to CEOs. If you can bluff your way with long stories, spew buzzwords continual assertions, and talk louder than everyone you seem to win.
- blueyes 6y agoPG is making some assumptions about who will read and benefit from this essay, and secondarily, who will read and benefit from the writings of his readers. The assumptions aren't wrong, they're just not explicit. Because he is not stating them overtly, he's getting criticized for not writing like Nabokov or the grand vizier of an emperor. Most of us will never be Nabokov, or the emperor's vizier. But we will write things for other people that they will need to understand and act on, and those are the people PG is writing for. An equally good way to state his point would be to echo Feynman: if you can't write it simply, you probably don't understand it. So it's good advice for anyone beginning to write something new, and it's good advice for anyone new to writing. Write simply first, if you can. And above all, write in a style that your audience can absorb.
- lelanthran 6y ago> An equally good way to state his point would be to echo Feynman: if you can't write it simply, you probably don't understand it. Probably applies to writing programs too.
- serverholic 6y agoAlso, we should give authors the benefit of the doubt. If an opinion is not broadly applicable then we shouldn't jump to conclusions and assume that was the authors intent.
- throwawaygh 6y ago> If an opinion is not broadly applicable then we shouldn't jump to conclusions and assume that was the authors intent. Graham states in this essay that his goal is: "ideas leap into your head and you barely notice the words that got them there". Given that this is the goal of his writing style, it's not at all surprising that his readers often jump to ("incorrect") conclusions barely noticing what got them there. Most of the comments critiquing this essay can be boiled down to an obvious but important observation: simplicity requires either eliding necessary nuance or hiding complexity. The goal is usually the latter, but hiding complexity in this way requires a shared context. Take a running program and strip it from its context (state). Then, drop the program into a new context. The meaning of the program can change drastically. Hell, it might not even type check anymore. The program text is the same but the meaning is different, and all that changed was the context. The only way to avoid this is to muddle up the program text with assertions on the context that ensure this "drop into new context" operation can't change the meaning of the program too much. So too with writing. Specifying context decreases the amount of shared context required to avoid miscommunication, but also results in less simple writing.
- Tycho 6y agoThis reminds me of an interview with Ernest Hemingway who mentions how he was influenced by great artists who were not writers, for instance, Cezanne, and (I think) Mozart, and others. When the interviewer pushes for more detail, he elaborates briefly on one example and then, tantalizingly, says the other examples are too obvious to explain. Always wondered about what he had in mind.
- mountain_peak 6y agoThat interview with George Plimpton (I think) is great, but Hemingway does eventually go into a bit more detail when pressed. My interpretation is that he admires people who have a deep well of talent and knowledge and use that to push art and science in a new direction. Bill Watterson is an excellent classical painter and painted the Creation of Adam on his dorm room ceiling, and although Calvin and Hobbes doesn't look like Michelangelo, that painting and experience is "in" his comics. Dali, Cezanne, and Mozart could have easily mimed past art and music, but they saw beyond what was done before to push in new directions. For his part, Hemingway goes on to explain that (to him) writing is like an iceberg - 7/8 of it is experience and knowledge hidden from the reader - they only see the part sticking above the water.
- Tycho 6y agoI hadn't thought about it from that perspective. Funny thing that occurred to me about the famous iceberg principle is that Hemingway had a large unpublished/abandoned volume of writing on Nick Adams, the fictional hero of many of his short stories. So in a sense the Nick Adams his readers knew, was only exposed as a fraction of the character's full existence, so to speak. I can imagine a writer taking it further and creating an entire fictional town, writing many histories but not publishing them, but using the town as a setting for published works. But back to the interview comment. I was thinking more literally, eg. when Cezanne does a painting of a landscape and/or some people, what details does he choose to actually paint? How many details does he include? Knowing that the viewer will recognize things from their broad outline. And with Mozart, well, I suppose there's things like how long should a piece last, what sort of rhythmic patterns are pleasing to audiences. Or, if you think of melodies as 'characters', how many different developments should they go through before recapitulating to their core.
- hnarn 6y agoReminds me of the Swedish journalist Sigge Ågren who received multiple awards for his work in forming a style in Swedish journalism, he's well known for the quote "Write concisely. Preferably, not at all". Both the technical field and the academic field (especially the humanities) are plagued with the notion that a complex and therefore "valuable" idea also needs to be expressed in complex terms to be considered valuable. Personally I believe that there's insecurity at the core of this, writers are afraid to mention things that are obvious to some readers, or afraid to use language that is considered too "simple" for the context (the efficiency of the message is not considered at all). When it comes to technical writing at least, nothing could be further from the truth. I think anyone who writes for a living has a responsibility to not waste the reader's time, and "get on with it" so to speak. Focus on what's important and drop the rest. Almost any sentence can be made 10% shorter, which seems insignificant until you've made the entire text 10% shorter without losing any important messaging.
- keiferski 6y agoThe whale has no voice; unless you insult him by saying, that when he so strangely rumbles, he talks through his nose. But then again, what has the whale to say? Seldom have I known any profound being that had anything to say to this world, unless forced to stammer out something by way of getting a living. Oh! happy that the world is such an excellent listener! - Moby Dick
- GreeniFi 6y agoLess to do with insecurity, more to do with signifying membership of a club. A bit like a regimental tie, vocal fry or the latest pair of sneakers.
- iambateman 6y agoIf you liked this essay, check out Politics and the English Language by Orwell. It changed the way I think about writing and goes into a bit more detail. https://www.orwellfoundation.com/the-orwell-foundation/orwell/essays-and-other-works/politics-and-the-english-language/ https://www.orwellfoundation.com/the-orwell-foundation/orwel...
- cousin_it 6y agoWhen something feels easy to read, it's not just a matter of using simple words. To maximize scanability, you need to use a mix of long and short words, and also mix long and short sentences, until you achieve a kind of "flow". Famously, Dovlatov's prose (in Russian) avoids having words that start with the same letter in the same sentence, which is unnoticeable to the reader but makes the words just fly off the page. Another trick I've found is making sure each word has unambiguous function. Here's some examples from other comments: I had this impression recently while reading the Akbarnama, which is a sort of court-approved biography of the Mughal Emperor Akbar, written by his Grand Vizier -- Was the Emperor written, or was it the biography? There are some cases in which your work demands a certain level of precision -- It could've continued like "in which your work demands are excessive", so you don't know if "demands" is a noun or a verb until you read on. That "simple" writing lasts longer is disproved by many works of literature that have made their way to us through history -- It could've continued like "that simple writing is not so simple", so you don't know if "that" is a conjunction or determiner until you read on. These are small things, but somehow the more I notice them, the clearer my writing becomes.
- keiferski 6y agoWas the Emperor written, or was it the biography? You skipped the first half of my sentence, which makes it pretty clear who wrote the book. At least, I think it does. In any case, you did make me realize the last clause is awkwardly written, so thanks! I amended my original comment.
- a1369209993 6y ago> > Was the Emperor written, or was it the biography? Based on the other examples, I think they meant, at the point where you have up to "written", do you expect the sentence to continue as above, or as something like: > I had this impression recently while reading the Akbarnama, which is a sort of court-approved biography of the Mughal Emperor Akbar, [who was] written as the greatest leader the Mughal empire ever had. Although if so, I don't think that one's a very good example, as suggested by the need to editorialize in the "[who was]" above.
- 6y ago
- jb1991 6y agoAt this point I think we just need to add this website to a penalty list and give it some small fraction of the calculated score it gets to be on the front page.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- calebm 6y ago"Never use a long word when a diminutive one will do." :)
- jjice 6y agoSimple writing definitely has its place along side more complex writing. It depends on the goal for sure. Writing to an audience to convey an idea. Maybe simple is better. Writing a document for the sales team of your product? Probably want to make it simple and leave out complexities. I do however understand some of the comments saying that complex writing can be more artful. A good analogy, symbolism, or metaphor can go a long way to driving home a point in a more elegant way.
- tartoran 6y agoA metaphor could be worth one thousand words but it’s not the case that simple writing can’t use metaphors, just less fancy words, less ornament, less bombastic, etc
- artembugara 6y agoI recommend everyone to use the Hemingway Editor to keep track of how easy it is to read your texts: https://hemingwayapp.com/ https://hemingwayapp.com/ Especially, if you're a tech writer. Explaining complex things in a simple way is what you should aim for. My #1 rule in writing: "if you can remove this word, and the reader can still understand what you mean then do so"
- frogpelt 6y agoWhen I was in college, an English professor shared this statement commonly attributed to Mark Twain, "I have made this longer than usual because I have not had time to make it shorter." It was actually Blaise Pascal who said it. But the point is, that clear writing means removing lots of fluff.
- davidedicillo 6y agoOh the irony of using an Italian word to describe his goal to write simply. Italian is way more verbose than English.
- sixhobbits 6y ago> the more deeply readers will engage with it You're already hypocritical - readers don't want to 'engage' with writing. People don't want to 'engage' at all. This is not an ordinary way of talking about things outside a pretty niche circle of VCs and marketing managers. Choose what to read and who to associate with as well as it will strongly influence your own language :)
- bin_bash 6y agoI don't think I agree. I find 'engage' to be a fairly average verb in this context. More importantly, if that's the most hypocritical word you can find I think he's probably taking his own advice in this article.
- travisjungroth 6y agoI think he’s talking about “engage” in the meaning of the word before it became a metric. Like to think about it, try it out in your own life, and discuss with others. Not view, like, share, comment, subscribe.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- nlh 6y agoI think this is PG's worst opinion. The man is undeniably intelligent, undeniably successful, and undeniably talented in business (and deserves huge credit for his contributions to the startup community). But I just thing he's deeply wrong here. His simple writing style (and those that have inherited/copied it) is a detriment to the community. It's the take of a (talented!) engineering mind. It's the same attitude that engineers often take with building digital products ("we don't need a designer - just present the UI elements simply and people will get it.") Design is an art. Communication is an art. Writing is an art. Essays are an art. They have function, of course, and a simple straightforward style is, indeed, a style that is more functional for some. But it also diminishes the joy of reading and purees it into the blandness of an economics textbook. I've tried to read his essays and yes, they have some great ideas, but they're just....bland. They're like Soylent for the mind. Does it deliver nutrition to your body in an maximally-efficient vehicle? Sure. Do you enjoy drinking that Soylent shake? shiver EDIT: I should explicitly clarify something: I'm not arguing that one should use jargon or unnecessarily complex words in their writing. That's obviously bad. But there's a gap between the "simple writing style" and "enjoyable rich prose".
- andy_ppp 6y ago“The gap between most writing and pure ideas is not filled with poetry.” It’s a simple sentence, filled with ideas, humour even. And it comes across vividly for me as some prone to over elaboration. It always comes back to “as simple as possible” being a rule to live by, write code by.
- curiousllama 6y agoYou ever try to read some social science papers? Or a consultant's slide deck? They're quagmires of "wtf does this even mean?" In college (and then consulting), I was basically trained to write like I'm trying to convince someone I'm smart. It only got in the way once I left and started trying to communicate real ideas. Graham's advice is very good for mundane, day-to-day writing.
- randomsearch 6y agoI would guess such writing in the humanities is exactly the sort of style he’s taking aim at.
- paulpauper 6y agoPaul having success by writing simply does not prove that simple writing is the key to successful writing. There are tons of other factors that make writing successful, such as the popularity and name recognition of the writer. I have found that writing tips ever seem to work as well for the recipient as whoever is giving the tips.
- abnry 6y agoThe most important rule of writing is to know your audience. Every other rule follows from that one.
- prionassembly 6y agoI feel personally attacked.
- trashme 6y agoGive yourself a pat on the back. I can't be so forthright about my shortcomings. You just gave me a nice chuckle, however.
- amznbyebyebye 6y agoHaha this is the guy who writes like an SAT exam question. It is very flat and boring, unmemorable. Of course the guy is a bazillionaire, I may never be like him, but the style of writing is stale like sparkling water gone flat. But I have read probably every one of his articles and taken away his ideas as the canonical guide for startup wisdom and success.
- paulpauper 6y agoThe reading passages of standardized tests are not just dull but intentionally full of filler and awkward phrasing, to throw off the reader. Paul is good at conveying his ideas succinctly
- coldtea 6y ago>Haha this is the guy who writes like an SAT exam question. It is very flat and boring, unmemorable. However PG writes (and philosophically/socially I disagree with a lot), he has had a large following for his posts / essays, aside from his YC role (from people who have nothing to do with startups). That's hardly what you gain from being "flat, boring, and unmemorable". Besides, you have missed the point. He is not arguing for plain style as opposed to literary flourishes or fun jokes, or whatever you consider not flat. He is arguing for clarity as opposed to flourishes for flourishes sake, academic obscurantism, and so on. You can write simply without it being "boring and unmemorable". Hemingway over Tom Wolfe, or Hume over Nietchze.
- davidivadavid 6y agoI think he is indeed arguing for clarity, which is why arguing for simplicity undermines his own argument. Nietzsche is a lucid writer (well, Zarathustra excepted). Rewriting Nietzsche to be more "simple" would certainly be a gargantuan mistake.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- mobb_solo 6y agoI always felt that much of Kurt Vonnegut's charm was due to the simplicity. If that ties in with what you were saying. Of course that doesn't imply the images and ideas are simple. Similarly, I always thought Tom Robbins tried too hard to be simple and sci-fi. A poor man's Vonnegut, and a Lazy man's Pynchon..heh..
- judofyr 6y agoI think this article ends up giving excellent examples for why you shouldn't just "write simply". There is basically no argumentation happening here and most statements are just thrown out as truths. Yes, it might be quick and easy to read through, but it's not very good writing. Examples: > Plus it's more considerate to write simply. When you write in a fancy way to impress people, you're making them do extra work just so you can seem cool. It's like trailing a long train behind you that readers have to carry. Notice how he's arguing against "write in a fancy way to impress people" and not "write in a fancy way". Most authors write in a "fancy" way to invoke a feeling in the reader. They don't add random words to "seem cool". Is spending a few more words to get the reader into a happy/sad mood "inconsiderate"? That's an interesting discussion, but in his quest to "write simply" he's just skipped right by it. > It's too much to hope that writing could ever be pure ideas. You might not even want it to be. But for most writers, most of the time, that's the goal to aim for. The gap between most writing and pure ideas is not filled with poetry. What is evening happening in this paragraph? First he's questioning whether it's possible for "writing to ever be pure ideas" without explaining what that's even supposed to mean. Then he says that most people aim for that. And somehow the solution is "not filled with poetry". I don't understand a thing of this. He's implying so much without explaining anything.
- TameAntelope 6y agoPG tends to write in a, “take it or leave it” style, you get used to it. He’s never, to my eyes, seemed interested in convincing you via flashy argument, he’d rather spend the extra time conveying what he’s experienced a bit more, and let you decide if it’s worth caring about. For me, I try to remember that a lot of what he’s saying may pattern match to an arrogant heuristic, but that’s just because 99 out of 100 people who strike that tone are blowhards. He is the 100th person, and there’s a lot to be gained if I set aside my own ego and just try to understand what he’s describing.
- diego 6y agoThe main issue with the article is the imperative title. It's not "here's why I like to write in this style." It's telling the reader to write that way. Sorry but no, I won't write the way you do because you tell me to. edit: the point of my comment is not that I won't write that way. It's that the author is talking about his own preferences, but the title makes it sound prescriptive. In a way it illustrates the opposite point. Opinions are nuanced, and a two-word title written in the imperative doesn't convey the nuance of what the author is trying to say.
- varjag 6y agoIt's Arc but for prose.
- lawwantsin17 6y agoWhy does anyone listen to this half rate essayist anymore? He's just looking for attention.
- whorleater 6y agoseems like he's arguing that the pinnacle of communication is the API spec
- keithwhor 6y agoI do think there can be a beauty in more esoteric words and longer sentences that cause them to feel more like poetry. This can, perhaps counterintuitively, make sentences feel more conversational as opposed to less. I can edit the above to; > I do think specific words and long sentences have their place. They can be used to alter the flow of a sentence and make it feel more conversational instead of less. But it's not the way I talk. I enjoy the way you can alter the cadence of sentence to impact the reader. For example: the phrase, "perhaps counterintuitively," is like a rolling hill the reader spends extra energy to climb but then engages them with the writer, "I'm interested, I like hearing about counterintuitive things" -- it's almost an invitation. You've set an expectation that something counterintuitive is ahead, so what's next? Generally, I could use more of Paul's advice in my own writing. And that's the fun of writing, learning to write is a very organic process. But I'm sure everyone can find their own style somewhere in between simple, poetic, natural, or whatever makes you feel the happiest about your work.
- bigpumpkin 6y ago"The gap between most writing and pure ideas is not filled with poetry." - Paul Graham "I dwell in Possibility – A fairer House than Prose – More numerous of Windows – Superior – for Doors – Of Chambers as the Cedars – Impregnable of eye – And for an everlasting Roof The Gambrels of the Sky – Of Visitors – the fairest – For Occupation – This – The spreading wide my narrow Hands To gather Paradise –" Emily Dickenson
- p0nce 6y agoI feel the same about that article as with the book Rework, everything is interesting and insightful but to keep the writing simple, what is said had to be molded into simple messages ; with a probably slightly different meaning. It seems such text work better with a technical readership. EDIT: but in all honesty, my most read texts online are where I managed to remove as much words as possible.
- gadders 6y agoI mean his writing is understandable, but it's not good writing. To this native English speaker, the sentences are a bit "Janet & John" - very short, very few compound versions. It's fine for his purpose, or in say a manual for a microwave. You can compare this with the writing of Patio11, which often seems to be the opposite extreme - chains of double negatives, obscure words etc etc.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- solidist 6y agoI've failed at writing. In its cathartic process I sketched. https://medium.com/@solidi/the-one-about-blogging-cd9e65a2055b https://medium.com/@solidi/the-one-about-blogging-cd9e65a205...
- addsimm 6y agoThis advice: to write "simply", like much writing advice offered by people who have not studied communication, is pathetic. Why? Because it offers nothing concrete that can help a given piece of writing or your writing in general. To illustrate, consider comparing pieces of writing: A caveat: its hard to set up a worthwhile comparison in the absence of context, meaning external information that pinpoints the points of comparisons. To keep this short, I'll propose and discuss two common comparisons that writers and readers make. Feel free to challenge these instances: 1. Grading tests. The purpose of grades is exactly to offer a reductionist evaluation that explicitly identifies the "better" answer. Please agree that grading becomes more difficult as one moves from true false, to multiple choice through short answer and finally to essay exams. Taken to the extreme, awarding a Pulitzer prize is a form of grading. Under conventional definitions of simple, as one moves toward that extreme, isn't it difficult to justify ever calling the simpler answer better? To me, the limiting case of this claim cribs from Occam's razor. The exact same answer, is better, if its shorter. Again to me, this is a difficult case to make, and ultimately is question begging, because it assumes the grader knows two answers are the same. (Notably to this hacker news community, there is a special case covering whether shorter code performing the same task is better.) Being more sympathetic to the advice giver (and in line with other comments), the advice really concerns clarity, conciseness, coherence or something similar. It is not controversial to say that, all else equal, the answer possessing this quality is better. (Does this claim require the sameness stipulation? It would makes discussions of that quality more interesting.) Thus, the advice is either wrong or mislabeled. 2. Revising writing. Whether stated or not, revision is the signal target of all writing advice. To use the same framework, the author has two pieces, the current piece and a future piece. Of course, the author wants to make the future piece "better" Leaving the point about clarity and its cousins aside, there are obvious cases where simpler is better. For example, the exact same piece is better absent extraneous material. Put another way, cutting the material only improves the piece if it is extraneous. You can see where this leads: more empty advice. The bottom line here is that simple is underspecified. It has no value without a much, and probably impossible to formulate, stronger definition of simple. So, trying to be constructive, what would, concretely, improve a given piece or your writing in general? Try this: Instead of editing down a given piece - trying to make it simpler - write two pieces for the same context, maximizing the differences between each. This takes time, but it is a much better exercise, especially for the beginner, than going back and forth with the same piece. I guarantee that having two pieces (not paragraphs, sentences, words or other subsets of the piece) will lead to a much better final piece, even novel, than having one piece and real or potential variants. Next, and this is the best "piece" of advice, I have: have others read your work - as many as you can, and discuss it with them as much as possible. TLDR Good writing takes work and conscious practice
- nicholast 6y agoTaken to the extreme this advice leads to collections like Randall Munroe's Thing Explainer or Dr Seuss' Green Eggs and Ham.
- srcreigh 6y agoThe idea of "trying" to write is in the last two of PG's essays. I would just like to reveal that the word "essay" comes from French verb "essayer" which means "to try". This makes the phrase "trying to write an essay" somewhat tautological doesn't it? I'm curious whether PG knows this little fact. If language is like a 6th sense into a shared platonic realm of ideas, it wouldn't be unsurprising that PG is able to survey the concept of "essays" accurately without knowing its etymology.
- macspoofing 6y agoGreat article. There are people who want to communicate ideas to as wide an audience as possible. Those people will instinctively use speech and writing in a way that is most accessible. There are people who want to intimidate, or impress. Those people will hide behind jargon and lingo.
- jlangemeier 6y agoCounterpoint; writing simply isn't useful in all cases, communicating simply is telling a first grade student that multiplication is repeated addition, yes it works in most day to day examples, but it breaks down when you start looking closely - how do you add something to itself zero time? Communicating simply can leave vague generalities to a technical conversation or decision making process that allows for those involved to make the wrong assumptions; but if you take the time to give precision to the process you can remove those assumptions without harming the overall communication. One doesn't need to go in depth about how a decision tree works or a random forest works to explain the pros and cons of the process, and the assumptions made to get the results. Writing simply in all cases is the equivalent of "when you have a hammer, everything looks like a nail," writing precisely is using a screwdriver when you're working with screws and a hammer with nails. Use the right tool for the job, sometimes simple isn't correct, and sometimes precision isn't either (elementary school algebra vs algebraic theory).
- cafard 6y agoJacques Barzun somewhere remarked that what makes for difficult reading is not length or number of words but density of thought. He instanced Dickens as a writer who used long words and complicated syntax but whom everyone finds easy to read.
- djoldman 6y agoSome of the comments here might benefit from what I believe is an unstated assumption in this piece. The assumption is that the purpose of your writing is to argue for a particular viewpoint/stance/take on an issue in a sober way. I don't believe the author is saying "write simply" if you are writing poetry or you are trying to inspire and motivate with emotion. Most of the author's writings are dry, devoid of fluff, and to the point, which I think flows from embracing the thinking behind this piece. Purpose dictates style.
- riemannzeta 6y agoRegarding writing as editing: This is a big problem in churches. As a child and young adult I spent countless hours listening to sermons on Sunday mornings. At some point, I realized that many sermons were delivered without editing. Every week the pastor has to deliver a certain amount of content, regardless of whether they have anything valuable to say. As a result, at many churches what you get is a combination of plagiarism and stream of consciousness. At only a few did I find any evidence of editing, and at even fewer editing by another person. The difference in quality was immense, and I believe that to a substantial extent the growth of the church would be correlated with that factor.
- hardwaregeek 6y agoWriting simply is certainly a great skill. It's like playing simply. You should be able to play an instrument without any vibrato or improvisation. But that doesn't imply you always have to write simply. To often I've had friends who declare that writing in school is dumb and that we should always write simple and short. What's implicit in their view is that the text is not important, simply the message. The text should be merely a vehicle to convey the message. I'd counter that the text is not extricable from the message. The form and style of the text colors the message and provides a signal of whom the author is speaking to and with what tone. I read a James Baldwin novel and I have the feeling of someone preaching to me with fervor and ferocity. I read a Paul Graham essay and I have the feeling of a drily funny, at times arrogant lecture. Like it or not, PG has a style that is his brand. It's a good brand, but to claim that it's purely simplicity is presumptuous.
- villasv 6y agoPinker wrote a whole book about this, much better written, in fact. Unlike an HN essayist, Pinker also is an actual wide-audience best-seller. And unlike this essay, Pinker correctly acknowledges many nuances.
- randomsearch 6y agoA book is longer than an essay, therefore more nuances can potentially be captured?
- villasv 6y agoTrue in general, but Pinker does so from the preface, so not valid as explanation.
- clwk 6y agoI couldn't get through Pinker's book. He cites 'Clear and Simple as the Truth' as inspiration, but his acorn falls so far from the tree.
- villasv 6y agoI think he mostly does as he preaches. My biggest complaint is the occasional contradiction, but if you read other writing style guides, he is not more contradictory than the average.
- clwk 6y agoIt’s more that the former book sets a very high bar I don’t think he clears in the attempt to make the topic more accessible.
- frankohn 6y agoThere was an excellent citation: "I apologize, I wrote you a long letter because I didn't have the time to write you a shorter one."
- throwawaygh 6y ago> My goal when writing might be called saltintesta: the ideas leap into your head and you barely notice the words that got them there. Simple and "saltintesta" writing is effective in many contexts. However, as any critic of Twitter culture can tell you, the style has an important pitfall. Why do so many people react strongly to seemingly innocuous Graham essays? How does a prescription to "Write Simply" cause such strong emotional reactions? I think it's in part because Graham writes in a simple and memetic ("saltintesta") style about not-so-simple topics. He writes to a very large audience is filled with readers who have a different latent perspective on that missing detail and nuance. Some of those readers fill in the nuance and context differently from how Graham intended. Unfortunately, they do so while barely noticing the words that got them there! Hence, conflict. But can we really blame the reader for falling into this pit, when the author's goal was for the words to be barely noticed? The comments on this article are a case study in the benefits and pitfalls of the Simple and "saltintesta" writing style. The style demands a lot of the reader's latent context. It therefore works well when writing to a group of people who are very much like the author but breaks down when writing across even small differences in culture, life experiences, or values.
- johnchristopher 6y ago> the ideas leap into your head and you barely notice the words that got them there. Ah, the good old wrong idea that somehow language is a tool that can clone ideas from one brain to another. It doesn't work like that.
- davidivadavid 6y agoRight. I'm surprised at how little thought people seem to have put into that idea. You can hear echoes of that when Musk talks about all the Neuralink stuff and just communicating with "pure thoughts" or whatever. What these pure thoughts and ideas, disconnected from language, are supposed to be, is left as an exercise to the listener.
- johnchristopher 6y agoI am coming from this angle https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypodermic_needle_model https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypodermic_needle_model
- just1morething 6y agoCan we write our way from the idea idea? If so, how? If not, why?
- epalm 6y agoAnyone else raising an eyebrow at a guy like PG with a non-SSL site?
- ulisesrmzroche 6y agoYeah, I saw that too. Notice how that normally gets folks crucified here.
- shalmanese 6y agoThis could have been an email.
- randomsearch 6y agoSo confused why anyone would assume PG is talking about writing fiction or poetry. It’s an essay by an essayist on writing essays.
- throwawaygh 6y agoThis "simple" style of writing demands a lot of the reader's and writer's shared context. Even in this comment section you can find two different commenters defending the essay but making different assumptions about what sort of writing PG is discussing! You assume essays, and another commenter assumes business writing. I happen to think you're both wrong, and that Graham's "Write Simply" prescription is meant to apply to much more than just business writing and essays (perhaps even all writing, but at least most writing). Three people who know a fair amount about the author -- at least relatively speaking -- can't agree on the meaning of this essay. Now, consider that some other people reading this essay might be genuinely confused about why we're discussing Parental Guidance.
- randomsearch 6y agoDo you think he is saying Shakespeare or Wordsworth or any great novelist should have written in this style?
- throwawaygh 6y agoI think he is talking about a lot more than essays and business writing. Beyond that, I can't say much. I do not know Paul Graham and haven't even read all of his essays. There are certainly people who don't like Shakespeare's style. I don't know if Graham is one of those people. He could have written a slightly clunkier essay that allowed me to understand with greater detail the entire collection of types of writing that he is discussing. He didn't want to write that essay, which is of course fine. To be clear, I'm not "for" or "against" any writing style for the same reason that I don't get into religious wars about programming languages. I think this is a good essay with some solid advice for many different types of writers. But it's also, ironically, an essay that can be used to demonstrate why one might sometimes choose to write a bit less simply. Or, to write simply (plain words and simple sentences) but without trying to "jump into the reader's brain without them noticing". It's really the combination of "Write Simply" and "saltintesta" that I think deserved at least a bit of a "well, sure, but realize this approach can be a footgun".
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- clwk 6y agoI think we have Hemingway to blame for this meme. I wonder why so very many authors feel the need to explicitly write these 'simple ode to simplicity' pieces — where each sentence in the exhortation has itself been optimized iteratively until no waste remains, so no lexical pixel has gone to waste. Sentences like 'Simple writing also lasts better,' are the unfortunate artifacts of this process. These are like the Teslas of brevity-pornographers: a mere five words attesting to hours of careful whittling; a praise-worthy awkwardness that could never have been produced on a native-speaker's first try.
- randomsearch 6y agoNa, I think he just got that wrong. If he revisited the essay after a few years he’d probably spot it. Stuck out for me too. But a kind of “snow blindness” develops towards written content after a while, and mistakes slip through.
- reducesuffering 6y ago> "Most readers' energy tends to flag part way through an article or essay." > "When you write in a fancy way to impress people, you're making them do extra work just so you can seem cool." > "So you can't assume that writing about a difficult topic means you can safely use difficult words." I can't understand why someone writing about writing simply is using a word like "flag" that is completely jarring and never used colloquially. While you can sort of surmise what it means from the context, I still had to look up the definition to confirm. And if it might be meant as a way to naturally teach someone the word, why is that lesson buried in an essay about writing simply? I guess I'll chalk it up to him not realizing how obtuse that word is, couldn't think of anything simpler like "wane", "fall", or "recede", and didn't want to change up the structure of that sentence. I just can't imagine how that irony got past any editor.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- fattybob 6y agoalways good, and always some things to take away.
- EGreg 6y agoDoes pg recycle his themes? I have seen this one a number of times over the years, and others as well. I guess everyone does that, to some extent, but this is literally the entire content of his piece. Hasn't he written something like that before? Why does he repeat himself every few years almost verbatim?
- kashyapc 6y agoThis boring imperative falls into the same trap as "Be Clear". Gregory Williams, author of the classic "Towards Clarity and Style", has a thoughtful rebuttal to these punchlines in his book's description (quoting an older edition): This is a book about writing clearly. I wish it could be short and simple like some others more widely known, but I want to do more than just urge writers to "Omit Needless Words" or "Be clear." Telling me to "Be clear" is like telling me to "Hit the ball squarely." I know that. What I don't know is how to do it. To explain how to write clearly, I have to go beyond platitudes. But I want to do more than just help you write clearly. I also want you to understand this matter to understand why some prose seems clear, other prose not, and why two readers might disagree about it; why a passive verb can be a better choice than an active verb; why so many truisms about style are either incomplete or wrong. More important, I want that understanding to consist not of anecdotal bits and pieces, but of a coherent system of principles more useful than "Write short sentences." • • • For non-fiction writing, I also vigorously recommend "Clear and Simple as the Truth" by Thomas and Turner[1]. It has fantastic practical advice; the entire second half of the book is filled with concrete examples—both "the exquisite and the execrable". [1] https://press.princeton.edu/titles/9445.html https://press.princeton.edu/titles/9445.html
- kashyapc 6y agoSmall correction: I mixed up the author and the co-author's names—it is Joseph Williams and Gregory Colomb.
- krosaen 6y agoElmore Leonard gives similar advice, summing it up nicely, "Try to leave out the part that readers tend to skip." https://www.nytimes.com/2001/07/16/arts/writers-writing-easy-adverbs-exclamation-points-especially-hooptedoodle.html https://www.nytimes.com/2001/07/16/arts/writers-writing-easy...
- mcguire 6y ago"When you write in a fancy way to impress people..." Is that the only reason to write in sentences of 10 words or more?
- benja123 6y agoThis is not just in writing, but in any form of communication including presentations or public speaking. Writing simply and learning how to present things in such a way that anyone can understand has probably been the most valuable skill for my career progression. I have seen too many cases where technical/domain experts miss this and instead use words that only people who work in the same domain as them would understand. The result is that when they do a presentation at least half the people in the room have no idea what they are speaking about but are too polite to say anything. I also live in a country where most of the population are not native english speakers and this has allowed me to understand that a lot of people think by using complicated language they sound smarter, which is the furthest possible thing from the truth. In one incident I actually had someone who liked to show everyone how smart he was ask me, if I can help him find a more complicated way/wording to say something in a presentation he was working on so he can sound smarter. My only assumption was that for him people not understanding acted as a giant ego boost. He was PhD, that was also lecturing at one of the local universities. I can only imagine that his students had absolutely no idea what he was talking about most of the time and I am sure he took great pride in it. In university, back in Canada where I was born I had a similar experience when one of my math teachers started the year off by telling the entire class how he is very proud of his vocabulary. Needless to say on one of the tests he used a word that no one understood. After numerous students asked him the same question he finally got angry and announced to the entire class what the word meant. Personally I encourage my team to do the following in every work presentation: 1. Pretend you are presenting to a friend or family member who has no idea about the subject matter 2. Any words that would be known by people who are either inexperienced or outside of your expertise should include a definition the first time you use it. It can be written or it can be verbal, but it needs to be there
- jakub_g 6y agoI started reading "On Writing Well" by W.Zinsser (one of often recommended classics) lately. I've only read first few chapters, but one of the core ideas is, apart from writing simply, to write concisely: - If you can use one word instead of three to convey same idea, use one. - Iterate on what you wrote, and ruthlessly eliminate words that don't add value. It's illustrated with a real example where he crosses out a dozen of phrases from a short text: https://ibb.co/k62CkLR https://ibb.co/k62CkLR It sounds extreme but I found this framework very useful e.g. when writing code comments, wiki docs, pull request info etc.
- cambalache 6y ago> And remember, if you're writing in English, that a lot of your readers won't be native English speakers. Their understanding of ideas may be way ahead of their understanding of English. Ah, condescension. The secret ingredient for a fantastic essay.
- atleta 6y agoDepends on the purpose, I guess. If the point is just to convey information, ideas, then yes, write simply. If the purpose is to, at least in part, to entertain, then don't. Thinking about the entertainment perspective and e.g. the journalists and bloggers I like, I think it's pretty similar to how we perceive music. I remember a paper from quite a few years ago that found (through fMRI) that we most enjoy music that our brain can mostly predict, but sometimes it would mispredict/would be wrong about the next few notes that follow. It's a balance. Non trivial writing must be similar. I.e. it may not be about music, but entertainment: it should be somewhat in line with what you expect but at the same time throw challenges at you. It should make you work at an enjoyable level. What he says about ageing, OTOH, is probably pretty universal. There is some debate in my country (Hungary) about the literature curriculum in elementary and high schools. Traditionally children are supposed to read XIX and early XX century novels from some of our great writers. This hasn't changed since I went to school decades ago. I remember hating these. Most of them were very hard to follow, very hard to decipher the story from the complex text. I guess what happened is that what they were writing was challenging to the level of being entertaining to their contemporaries (just like it is with today's writers, of course) but then the change in the language made it too challenging for most of us (at least the young, untrained minds).
- the__alchemist 6y ago> The other reason my writing ends up being simple is the way I do it. I write the first draft fast, then spend days editing it, trying to get everything just right. Much of this editing is cutting, and that makes simple writing even simpler. Related: There was a post here a few days ago, where the author described 2 styles of writing: Writing start to end, naturally evolving, and working out of sequence, with many edits. She focus of that article was the author preferring the former. This article's author prefers the latter.
- pjettter 6y agoI thought that piece was actually hard to read. Roughly the same size paragraphs, and many. No headings. Only simple words. Unsuitable to scanning back and forth. It forced me to read it and then I got bored.
- just1morething 6y agoPaul is on the better side of every moat he makes.
- chartpath 6y agoLove pg but lol at opening with "I write simple" and immediately throwing around some Italian words.
- grawprog 6y agoWhen i was in school, our technical writing teacher constantly drilled in one key concept: 'Get to the point.' As in, be concise, be clear, don't use more words than necessary and make your writing as simple to understand as possible. Most writing exists to try and communicate an idea. The words used should be chosen to make that idea as clear as possible with the least amount of effort. (Apart from abstract poetry and such I suppose.)
- sjg007 6y agoThe really good writers can hold multiple ideas in juxtaposition and allow the reader to draw their own conclusions.
- gojomo 6y agoFor grins I pasted PG's text into the demo readability tool at <https://app.readable.com/text/?demo https://app.readable.com/text/?demo>. 'Write Simply' received an overall grade of 'A', and a very-approachable Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level of 5.9. It's said to be readable by 100% of the literate general public, which is only 85% of the full general public. But, out of the 507 words and 38 sentences, 4 sentences were flagged as "very long" (over 30 syllables) and 15 as "long" (over 20 syllables). Two 'hard words' – over 12 letters or over 4 syllables – were flagged, somewhat ironically: "unnecessarily intellectual".
- boatsie 6y agoI think this is an extension of pg’s advice he gives to YC startups when they describe themselves. For those who have looked a website or sat through a pitch deck and wondered what the hell the company actually does, this advice is crucial. I don’t believe he is talking about fictional literary works, but rather language for communications. YC was probably the first proponent of the X for Y type of startup descriptions, because the analogies are simple and give you a starting point to begin understanding.
- rishflab 6y agoBeing concise and to-the-point is just as important as using simple English. That blog post is too long for the ideas it conveys (kinda ironic?). Here are some things I found tiring to read: "There's an Italian dish called saltimbocca, which means "leap into the mouth." My goal when writing might be called saltintesta: the ideas leap into your head and you barely notice the words that got them there." ^ This analogy is distracting and not required to communicate a simple concept. "It's too much to hope that writing could ever be pure ideas. You might not even want it to be. But for most writers, most of the time, that's the goal to aim for. The gap between most writing and pure ideas is not filled with poetry." ^Just delete this. What are you trying to say here? "It's like trailing a long train behind you that readers have to carry." ^I don't understand this analogy. Long train I am trying to carry behind me? That is a ridiculous and distracting image you have put into the readers mind. "If the friction of reading is low enough, more keep going till the end." ^This is an obtuse and awkward way of saying: "People are more likely to read things they easily understand" "Indeed, lasting is not merely an accidental quality of chairs, or writing. It's a sign you did a good job." ^ Where did chairs come from? But although these are all real advantages of writing simply, none of them are why I do it. The main reason I write simply is that it offends me not to." ^ Delete, doesn't add any value tbh
- jxramos 6y ago""" As Kevin Williamson observed, Sowell is “that rarest of things among serious academics: plainspoken.” From 1991 until 2016, his nationally syndicated column set the bar for clear writing, though the topics he covered were often complex. “Too many academics write as if plain English is beneath their dignity,” Sowell once said, “and some seem to regard logic as an unconstitutional infringement of their freedom of speech.” If academics birth needlessly complex prose, editors too often midwife it. An editor, Sowell once quipped, would probably have changed Shakespeare’s “To be or not to be, that is the question” to something awful, like “The issue is one of existence versus non-existence.” """ https://www.city-journal.org/thomas-sowell-race-poverty-culture https://www.city-journal.org/thomas-sowell-race-poverty-cult...
- jasonhoch 6y agoI agree with the thesis, but a voice in the back of my head was whispering "Newspeak..."[1] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newspeak https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newspeak
- marlor 6y agoWriting simply doesn’t require an unnaturally restricted vocabulary, and it doesn’t limit you to simple ideas. It means writing in a straightforward manner, using words that precisely express what you want to say, without the reader needing to fall back on allusion or guesswork. If an idea is complex, then there may be no simple words to express it. That’s fine. However, dressing up simple ideas with complex words is not. That’s just deception. Orwell was in favour of simple, direct language. Newspeak was insidious because it obscured meaning and eliminated expressiveness. Complex language can do the same, and Orwell was well aware if this. In “Politics and the English Language”, he railed against "pretentious diction" and "meaningless words". These, he said, were used to make biases look impartial and to obscure the point of a statement. Orwell’s six rules of precise writing stand today. In summary: 1. Avoid overused metaphors, simile, or other figures of speech. They have likely lost any precise meaning; 2. Never use a long word where a short one will do; 3. If it is possible to cut a word out, always cut it out; 4. Never use the passive where you can use the active; 5. Never use a foreign phrase, a scientific word, or a jargon word if you can think of a precise everyday English equivalent; 6. Break any of these rules sooner than say anything outright barbarous.
- thanhhaimai 6y agoAm I the only one not very fond of this style of writing? It's the constant pauses and hiccups that I'm reading. Four paragraphs into it, and I still don't get a lot of information about what the author is trying to convey. In good essays, the first and last sentence in a paragraph are often enough to summarize the points. It helps set the context, and makes it much easier for the reader to make a mental map of the overall idea. In this article, its "hiccup" style of writing makes it much harder to build a mental map. You can't predict where it will go until you fully read the sentence. I usually enjoy reading most of PG essays. For this one, I don't enjoy reading it, and I stopped reading after paragraph 4.
- whalesalad 6y agoI normally have a very hard time reading his essays.
- ganafagol 6y agoCould you elaborate? FWIW, it's unclear what you mean. "Normally" as in "usually, but not this one" or "usually, and this one too"? Two exact opposites, and in just one sentence you managed to be maximally ambiguous. If done on purpose, that's a skill. But, without intending to offend, I think you just don't realize how hard simple writing actually is. I think he succeeded in it very well.
- noobly 6y agoHe usually has a hard time reading his essays. I don't think he was making a statement on this particular one.
- travisjungroth 6y agoHe used to have a hard time reading his essays. He still does. But he used to, too.
- ozim 6y agoI have to agree there was something off with the tempo of this essay. There were too many too short paragraphs.
- ConnieDee 6y agoAha - permission to write some incomplete sentences. Thanks!
- ConnieDee 6y agoAha! Permission to include incomplete, albeit clear, sentences. Thanks!
- mattowen_uk 6y agoWhereas I have no opinion about PGs style of writing, I do however wish he'd push out that table width from 435 to something between 700-800, for readability. Sometimes, it's not just about the words, but the layout also.
- randomsearch 6y agoWrite like you talk. Read your writing aloud. Great writing is rewriting. Keep it simple.
- gauchojs 6y agoWow - I though the highest comment would just praise pg and his essays. I love his essays.
- AnimalMuppet 6y agoI think this is "writing too simply", at least for me. PG's essays have hit the sweet spot of delivering the ideas without the words getting in the way. But here, he tried to write even more simply, and destroyed what made his essays attractive. Sure, the words are simple, but the over-simple words are creating an impedance mismatch for delivering the ideas. At least for me.
- maya24 6y agoMaybe hologram should also think about writing more succinctly. He could have gotten across this message in half the words.
- a4isms 6y agoI have opinions about writing. So does Mr. Graham. What our opinions have in common is that they are not falsifiable. Unless we validate our conjectures with empirical evidence, we're really just sharing our taste. "Oh no," you may say, "I have tested it, and when I write a longer essay, my retweets and upvotes decline." Very well, but the plural of anecdote is not 'data.' Somewhere else on the Internet, there is someone with poetic, dense writing. When they simplify it, their audience dries up. Writers and audiences find each other. If you try to measure the effect of your writing using only an audience that has selected your writing voluntarily, you are not measuring your effectiveness, you are measuring the degree to which your writing pleases people who already like your writing. Absent a properly constructed empirical approach, we might as well be discussing hemlines and necktie widths.
- runawaybottle 6y agoYo, but real talk, didn’t we all just eat his essay up?
- pretendscholar 6y agoNo I really dislike Paul Graham and I find his writing style to be extremely grating. I wouldn't have said anything but you asked. I guess I'm in the minority on this one and I'm a hater in general.
- lioeters 6y agoMay I ask, what characteristics/qualities you find so grating in his writing? Like/dislike of writing style is so subjective, just like musical taste, so I can understand if it's not even possible to verbalize why. Perhaps it's just the "tone".
- yawaramin 6y agoWell, yes, style and taste are by definition subjective. In the words of The Big Lebowski, 'That's just, like, your opinion, man!' ;-)
- 6y ago
- brody_hamer 6y agoI believe this applies to writing code 100%.
- vonwoodson 6y agoAnd, if you didn’t notice, using plain English is now a requirement for US government documents and publications. And has been for about 10 years. https://digital.gov/resources/plain-writing-act-of-2010/ https://digital.gov/resources/plain-writing-act-of-2010/
- logicchop 6y agoIt's too bad that an article about "simple writing" is so hard to read. It has "simple" words, but it's clunky. Two examples: "That kind of writing is easier to read, and the easier something is to read, the more deeply readers will engage with it. The less energy they expend on your prose, the more they'll have left for your ideas." (Why not: "Simple writing makes it easier to engage your ideas.") "And remember, if you're writing in English, that a lot of your readers won't be native English speakers. Their understanding of ideas may be way ahead of their understanding of English." (Why not: "Don't make your ideas difficult to understand.")
- brendanmc6 6y agoYour examples are plain assertions. "do this." Paul's are more convincing, even though he doesn't assert anything. He just provides the rationale.
- ALittleLight 6y ago"It's too much to hope that writing could ever be pure ideas. You might not even want it to be. But for most writers, most of the time, that's the goal to aim for. The gap between most writing and pure ideas is not filled with poetry." When I was a teenager I was waiting in the kitchen for my mom to do something. I was in a bad mood and frustrated at having to wait, and and I resigned myself to staring at a bit of artwork my mother had recently put up - one of Andy Warhol's soup cans, and I determined that I would stare at nothing but this stupid picture until I found something interesting about it. After a moment or two I thought that it was interesting how tragic it was that in our society a master artist spent his time illustrating... soup cans. Even as I was completing the thought, it struck me, like a truck, that this may have been exactly the intended message. That some graphic designer, who might have the soul of an artist, would have to earn a living doing the iconography on a soup can - for no higher purpose than crass commercialism, and even that wouldn't be original, but mass produced by machines and assembly lines - that in our society art itself was subsumed by capitalism. That was the first moment that I realized art might be more than pretty pictures. In my own home office I have that same picture now. It reminds me of a lot of thoughts - the memory of that realization, striving against creativity enslaved by capitalism, and my own mother. I bring this up because I think there is some sense in which "poetry" can separate writing from meaning, but there is another way in which poetry, or abstract expression like art, can encode meaning that simple and direct communication cannot hope to. In college I heard a poem that went "The apparition of these faces in a crowd; petals on a wet, black, bough". I still don't know exactly what that feeling is, but I feel that way from time to time and recite that poem to myself when I do. Poetry, or art, is inexact, but I think it is a lot closer to the pure idea form of communication. At least when it works.
- austincheney 6y agoSometimes writing less simple is beneficial when intentional. Know your audience. Less simple writing alienates people. If you wish to preference a particular segment of the general population only, this is one way to do it. The benefit of that is less noise. A problem in that is some people will get angry and blame you with hostility if they feel stupid and cannot follow the writing.
- gonational 6y agoReading Paul Graham's "essays" is inspiring, because, the more of his writing that I read, the more I realize that basically anybody can be a multimillionaire.
- xixixao 6y ago> When you write in a fancy way to impress people, you're making them do extra work just so you can seem cool. Here’s a challenge: Communicate without the word “just” (as in “only”). Every time I write the word “just”, I find that there is a level of snarkiness behind it, as in this example. ~Just~ Avoid it.
- birgitt 6y agoI used to think rhetorical devices were just ways to sound fancy, but they can be effective tools for transferring emotion or conveying nuanced concepts from author to reader. E.g., analogy can be more efficient at this than plain description.
- spoonjim 6y agoThe simple style of writing works when the reading is functional in nature: people read Paul Graham essays because they think it’s an instructional manual for getting rich, so the appropriate style is the same as an instruction manual for assembling a coffee table. For other readers’ goals, other styles are more appropriate.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- for_i_in_range 6y agoSimply is not depth, but breadth. Write truly, not simply. “The great thing is to last and get your work done and see and hear and learn and understand; and write when there is something that you know; and not before; and not too damned much after.” - Ernest Hemingway, Death In The Afternoon
- amznbyebyebye 6y agoHe’s too respected at this point for anyone to correct him or give effective feedback..
- sanderjd 6y agoFor me, this is one of those things where the distributions have different skew. I think the median example of less simple writing is indeed worse than the median example of simple writing, but that the graphs cross at some point to the right of that, such that better examples of less simple writing are better than better examples of simple writing, and great examples of less simple writing are much better than great examples of simple writing. (I recognize that this is all subjective, but this is how I think about it.) The genre also matters a lot. For sure I think simple writing is the better choice for Graham's topics, but I think it's much more open for fictional writing, and that some kinds of non fiction essays also benefit from less simplicity (again, keeping in mind the distribution effect discussed above). For instance, one of my favorite essays is David Foster Wallace's "This Is Water". It is not simple, but it is much more effective than an essay using simple language to make the point that we often don't realize the things that we are immersed in. But I come across examples of this by good writers who do not usually use simple language who I believe are usually more compelling than writers like Graham.
- okareaman 6y agoKurt Vonnegut wrote simply. He did this to create a feeling of being a lost child in a lost world (Billy Pilgrim, Slaughterhouse 5 for example.) On the other hand, arguable the greatest sentence in the English language, the opening paragraph from Moby Dick is not written simply, yet Melville makes it flow. "Call me Ishmael. Some years ago - never mind how long precisely - having little or no money in my purse, and nothing particular to interest me on shore, I thought I would sail about a little and see the watery part of the world. It is a way I have of driving off the spleen, and regulating circulation. Whenever I find myself growing grim about the mouth; whenever it is a damp, drizzly November in my soul; whenever I find myself involuntarily pausing before coffin warehouses, and bringing up the rear of every funeral I meet; and especially whenever my hypos get such an upper hand of me, that it requires a strong moral principle to prevent me from deliberately stepping into the street, and methodologically knocking people's hats off - then, I account it high time to get to sea as soon as I can. This is my substitute for pistol and ball... I quietly take to the ship. There is nothing surprising in this. If they but knew it, almost all men in their degree, some time or other, cherish very nearly the same feelings towards the ocean with me." Vonnegut and Melville were great writers. Paul Graham is a great programmer turned businessman who likes to dabble at writing.
- just1morething 6y agoHow much of simplicity is similar history?
- m463 6y agoI wish this idea would make it to research papers. Instead of large words and greek symbols, possibly simplicity and compilable code.
- 7357 6y ago"Short words are best and the old words when short are best of all." W. Chuchill
- pjc50 6y agoOn this subject I tend to defer to Orwell's https://www.orwellfoundation.com/the-orwell-foundation/orwell/essays-and-other-works/politics-and-the-english-language/ https://www.orwellfoundation.com/the-orwell-foundation/orwel... (avoiding bad metaphors and canned phrases), and Samuelson's rules for legal writing: https://people.ischool.berkeley.edu/~pam/papers/goodwriting.html https://people.ischool.berkeley.edu/~pam/papers/goodwriting.... Especially the latter's "have a point" and "get to the point".
- robofanatic 6y agoI think it depends on the subject. Especially non-fiction writing might feel bland if written in simple words. You need to dramatize few things to make the reader think.
- npras87 6y agoI too thought this was the better way to write. To write simply, in the way that Paul suggests here, and in the way most editorial softwares these days try to suggest/auto-correct our writings (gmail, grammarly, hemingway app etc). That is until I found a guy called Alexander Cortes, a personal trainer selling fitness programs online. His writing style and the philosophy behind is the exact opposite of the ideas above. When I subscribed to his newsletter (read by many thousands) I was impressed with his style. It has typos, no punctuation and no writing order/rules of any kind that you might've got used to. But you can still read and fully comprehend it. Otherwise that many people wouldn't be following him (100K twitter followers: @AJA_Cortes). It's unique and makes his writing stand out from all the writers following same writing advice from the mainstream writing advice (which is similar to what Paul says in the article). In this tweet thread Alexnder talks about his writing style [1]. Here's two posts from his blog [2] and [3] that I like and shows the style. [1] https://twitter.com/AJA_Cortes/status/1250356145316712449 https://twitter.com/AJA_Cortes/status/1250356145316712449 [2] https://cortes.site/the-protocol-for-rehabbing-a-bad-shoulder/ https://cortes.site/the-protocol-for-rehabbing-a-bad-shoulde... [3] https://cortes.site/the-tao-of-bro/ https://cortes.site/the-tao-of-bro/
- JoeAltmaier 6y agoI doubt you can 'fully comprehend it'. Folks peddling new-age advice thrive on misunderstanding. They get more folks interested if they don't exactly say what they're saying. Everybody has a different interpretation of bad writing. That's why its bad.
- nicbou 6y agoI agree with Paul. I tend to pick the simplest language that works. However, it largely depends on who you write for. On my website [1], I write for immigrants. I pick simple words, and I write simple sentences. I avoid idioms, rare words, and expressions. It's not very interesting to read, but it's easy to understand. When I'm among fluent speakers, I'll pepper my sentences with idioms, and generally be more expressive. It's more fun to write that way, because I can pour some of myself into my writing. That's how I write most comments and blog posts. However, one must be cautious as not to overdo it, and in the process alienate the reader with needlessly elongated prose. Though this writing style is entirely too common in academia - particularly in the philosophy department - it serves little more than to prove how full of himself writer is. Perhaps it is believed that this is how intelligent people express themselves, but the reader's energy is better spent on the underlying ideas than on the deciphering of each sentence. [1] Typical example: https://allaboutberlin.com/guides/german-health-insurance https://allaboutberlin.com/guides/german-health-insurance
- danielmarkbruce 6y agoPG needs to do more than writing so he has something to write about. His essays were better when he had something uniquely insightful to say.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]