3 ms·

PG 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

PG 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 ago
Also, 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.
  - serverholic 6y ago
    I don't think it's just Graham though. I see this kind of thing in every comment section on hacker news. That would indicate to me the the cause is something different than this particular writing style. People here LOVE to take statements and search for contexts where the statement doesn't work, then act like that was what the author was arguing.
davidivadavid 6y ago
Then I would say that this essay fails on its own standard, because what it argues for is clarity, not simplicity. I'm sure Paul Graham thinks himself a clear writer, which he tends to be. Now try running "On Lisp" through an app like Hemingway, that will "simplify" the language. I'm almost certain the result will be less clear than the original, even though it'll be arguably simpler. Is that really what writers should aim for?

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 ago

Also, 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.
- serverholic 6y ago
  I don't think it's just Graham though. I see this kind of thing in every comment section on hacker news. That would indicate to me the the cause is something different than this particular writing style. People here LOVE to take statements and search for contexts where the statement doesn't work, then act like that was what the author was arguing.

davidivadavid 6y ago

Then I would say that this essay fails on its own standard, because what it argues for is clarity, not simplicity. I'm sure Paul Graham thinks himself a clear writer, which he tends to be. Now try running "On Lisp" through an app like Hemingway, that will "simplify" the language. I'm almost certain the result will be less clear than the original, even though it'll be arguably simpler. Is that really what writers should aim for?