5 ms·

I 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 st

I 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 ago
PG 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 ago
  The 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.
  - TameAntelope 6y ago
    Surely you can work through that and pick out the parts you find useful/interesting, no? Or are you saying the assertive voice makes that harder?
    - askafriend 6y ago
      The commenter is not saying the writing has no value. They're saying that the main issue is the prescriptive title.
  - hombre_fatal 6y ago
    This is weirdly sensitive. Like the guy who sees guitar lessons advertised on the bulletin board and gets mad because he doesn’t want guitar lessons.
    - diego 6y ago
      No, that's not the point. I'm not talking about _me_ specifically, I'm talking about how the article has a prescriptive title. It implies that everyone should write this way. In reality it's about the author's preferences.
  - 1vuio0pswjnm7 6y ago
    If the blog post is about programming and it adopts a didactic style, i.e., telling the reader what to do, and it is obviously based on personal preferences -- either the author's or someone else's -- I react the same way. To me, these writings are only opinions. The internet is absolutely loaded with programmers offering opinions or repeating the opinions of others but framing them as directives. Do this or don't do that. Or the more subtle: I like X and and you should, too. These authors can be argumentative if the opinions are challenged, as if one was disobeying a directive, or contradicting a fact, instead of disagreeing with an individual or group opinion.
    - nottrobin 6y ago
      I'm not so convinced of the difference between the "real world" and online. Misinformation, propaganda & charlatans all existed in droves long before the internet. In fact, it's almost certainly true that your average internet user is far better informed about actual facts than the average pre-internet person. Scepticism about what you read is advisable everywhere, internet users have become better at it than previous generations. Hence, I also don't think there's anything at all wrong with the imperative style of writing (or I might as well say "there is nothing wrong with it"). Since it is incumbent upon the reader to consider whether or how far to trust the author anyway, it should make no difference whether the statements are presented as fact or opinion. To treat them differently is to give the author far too much power over your thinking. And so, as the author, given that any sensible reader will put your statements in context anyway, you might as well simply state them directly.
- tyre 6y ago
  Having written other things that are popular doesn't answer to the OP's comment nuanced arguments are a good and helpful thing. PG doesn't pattern match as such because other people are blowhards. He's actually arrogant. Which is fine! He's been very successful enough times that it seems unlikely to be coïncidence. But he also writes essays that are complete whiffs. It's not an ego thing by the reader. There are many examples of no nuance where there is actually a hell of a lot of nuance in the subject at hand. So people quote the essays or act on them blindly because they rely on them as exhaustive when I don't think that that is the case or his actual intention.
- sillysaurusx 6y ago
  PG 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 PG's "responses" are a good contrast, if you're curious what "pg trying to persuade the reader" sounds like. http://paulgraham.com/kedrosky.html http://paulgraham.com/kedrosky.html
fossuser 6y ago
> "Most authors write in a "fancy" way to invoke a feeling in the reader. They don't add random words to "seem cool"." I'd bet money this is mostly wrong, and most authors are writing in a fancy way to seem fancy. That's part of the reason their writing is often bad. There are exceptions, but I'd argue that failure is the general case. > "I don't understand a thing of this." Clarity of thought without purple prose fluff? That's my take away from it anyway. Basically, most of the time extra purple prose fluff is not poetry and just gets in the way. Poetry would be an exception to this rule. This essay is also similar to another one of his from 2015 (which has more explicit examples): http://www.paulgraham.com/talk.html http://www.paulgraham.com/talk.html
- ulisesrmzroche 6y ago
  Actually, poetry frowns on purple prose too. Hence the “prose” part. But you can’t call adjectives and similes and metaphors all purple prose.
  - fossuser 6y ago
    Sure - and there's some subjectivity to 'write simply'. The idea is good though, bias towards clarity and be aware of how complex your writing is. Don't use big words to try and seem smart or fancy because they obscure meaning - there are rare exceptions to this, but they should be intentional and rare.
    - ulisesrmzroche 6y ago
      I agree about jargon and such but PG writes without any literary devices at all. Don’t you think that’s going too far? “That dude is sneaky” “That dude is sneakier than a fox” Why cut out fox?
      - fossuser 6y ago
        I think most of the time it should be cut out, the times you leave it in should be intentional and rare. If you read stuff that's doing that kind of thing all of the time it makes it harder to read and the writing is often worse. It's something newer writers tend to do for some reason, I'm not sure why.
randomsearch 6y ago
Wow I’m amazed that you don’t have the same interpretation to me here. Perhaps the first difference between us is I immediately assumed PG is talking about transmitting ideas (argumentation or proposition), ie writing essays and not writing fiction. What I assume he means about “writing not being pure ideas”, he means there’s an overhead in transmitting ideas via writing. This is analogous to using programming languages to capture ideas, hence anything but simplicity offends because it is analogous to (in)elegance in code. I think this essay is excellent but it seems I was more attuned to his message, or at least it met my expectations.
- IneffablePigeon 6y ago
  Ironically, as far as I'm concerned, excellent poetry _is_ about as close as writing gets to "pure ideas" (or at the very least pure emotion). Average poetry, maybe not so much. I think, as usual, there's a lot of nuance here. I think emotion is inextricably linked to almost all forms of communication, and that there's not such a bright line between fiction and non fiction in that regard. The books that have taught me the most are not necessarily the ones with the most information density or even the most clarity of thought (although both help). The ones that have really conveyed their points effectively to me have all had an element of weaving them into a narrative that I could engage with, examine from different angles, absorb and remember. But I'm also pretty sympathetic to the idea of cutting fluff at all opportunities and getting to the root of what you want to say - that's the one thing that's improved my writing the most.
  - BossingAround 6y ago
    > Ironically, as far as I'm concerned, excellent poetry _is_ about as close as writing gets to "pure ideas" (or at the very least pure emotion). Depends on the time period. I wouldn't exactly say that T. S. Eliot's poetry was about pure idea (or pure emotion). He did revel a lot in the fact that he was very educated and the readers are probably less so. Still a canonical author though.
planet-and-halo 6y ago
Writing is an imperfect technology for moving thoughts between minds. "Writing simply" is valuable if it communicates your thought more efficiently and accurately (and it is indeed a common peccadillo to write thoughts in a bloated and inefficient manner), but like you're pointing out, some thoughts are not compressible beyond a certain point. For example, here's some Ovid quoted in a book I'm reading. I'd like to hear how you could write this "simply" without losing resolution of the thought from which it originated: -------- There is no greater wonder than to range The starry heights, to leave the earth’s dull regions, To ride the clouds, to stand on Atlas’ shoulders, And see, far off, far down, the little figures Wandering here and there, devoid of reason, Anxious, in fear of death, and so advise them, And so make fate an open book… Full sail, I voyage Over the boundless ocean, and I tell you Nothing is permanent in all the world. All things are fluid; every image forms, Wandering through change. Time is itself a river In constant movement, and the hours flow by Like water, wave on wave, pursued, pursuing, Forever fugitive, forever new. That which has been, is not; that which was not, Begins to be; motion and moment always In process of renewal… Not even the so-called elements are constant… Nothing remains the same: the great renewer, Nature, makes form from form, and, oh, believe me That nothing ever dies….
mcguire 6y ago
"There is basically no argumentation happening here and most statements are just thrown out as truths." If you read through Paul's previous essays, you may notice that he falls into this habit frequently.
epr 6y ago
(you) > 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. After reading this I would expect a solid argument from you that "it's not very good writing" because "There is basically no argumentation happening" and "most statements are just thrown out as truths". (you) > Notice how he's arguing against So... is argumentation happening or not? (pg) > When you write in a fancy way to impress people, you're making them do extra work just so you can seem cool. (you) > Notice how he's arguing against "write in a fancy way to impress people" and not "write in a fancy way". He is definitely taking for granted here that everyone who is writing in a "fancy way" is doing so to impress people. At the very least, he seems to be suggesting that this is often the case. There is no question whatsoever though, that this is happening at least some of the time. (you) > Most authors write in a "fancy" way to invoke a feeling in the reader. They don't add random words to "seem cool" "Most"? According to what? Do you have anything more to support this assertion than he had to support his? Are you really in a position to be critiquing him about this? (pg) > 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. (you) > 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. There's a fair amount of implicit logic here, but i'd say the general idea is something along the lines of: - The purpose of writing (for "most writers, most of the time") is to communicate ideas. - Care ought to be taken in preventing the medium (text) from inhibiting this communication. - Simple writing can be understood by a more broad audience - Therefore, simple writing will help these writers towards their end of communicating these ideas to a broader audience (you) > Then he says that most people aim for that. No, he said "for most writers, most of the time, that's the goal to aim for". He is saying that they ought to be aiming for that. If they already were doing so, then it would go without saying. (you) > And somehow the solution is "not filled with poetry" Again, I think you are misunderstanding what he is trying to say. Building on my previous explanation, I'd say he is contrasting his ideal of simple writing with poetry, which is often cryptic. Circling back to my initial statement, I'd suggest you worry about your own arguments before criticizing those of others.
auggierose 6y ago
Of course you should write simply. But of course, the context matters. For example, when writing mathematical texts, somehow being able to convey pure ideas is the ideal. Poetry is not needed in that context, it is confusing, as the beauty is in the ideas conveyed, not in the words used to convey it. In such a context, for example using the expression "vector space" counts as writing simply, while in a general context it does not.

TameAntelope 6y ago

PG 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 ago
The 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.
- TameAntelope 6y ago
  Surely you can work through that and pick out the parts you find useful/interesting, no? Or are you saying the assertive voice makes that harder?
  - askafriend 6y ago
    The commenter is not saying the writing has no value. They're saying that the main issue is the prescriptive title.
- hombre_fatal 6y ago
  This is weirdly sensitive. Like the guy who sees guitar lessons advertised on the bulletin board and gets mad because he doesn’t want guitar lessons.
  - diego 6y ago
    No, that's not the point. I'm not talking about _me_ specifically, I'm talking about how the article has a prescriptive title. It implies that everyone should write this way. In reality it's about the author's preferences.
- 1vuio0pswjnm7 6y ago
  If the blog post is about programming and it adopts a didactic style, i.e., telling the reader what to do, and it is obviously based on personal preferences -- either the author's or someone else's -- I react the same way. To me, these writings are only opinions. The internet is absolutely loaded with programmers offering opinions or repeating the opinions of others but framing them as directives. Do this or don't do that. Or the more subtle: I like X and and you should, too. These authors can be argumentative if the opinions are challenged, as if one was disobeying a directive, or contradicting a fact, instead of disagreeing with an individual or group opinion.
  - nottrobin 6y ago
    I'm not so convinced of the difference between the "real world" and online. Misinformation, propaganda & charlatans all existed in droves long before the internet. In fact, it's almost certainly true that your average internet user is far better informed about actual facts than the average pre-internet person. Scepticism about what you read is advisable everywhere, internet users have become better at it than previous generations. Hence, I also don't think there's anything at all wrong with the imperative style of writing (or I might as well say "there is nothing wrong with it"). Since it is incumbent upon the reader to consider whether or how far to trust the author anyway, it should make no difference whether the statements are presented as fact or opinion. To treat them differently is to give the author far too much power over your thinking. And so, as the author, given that any sensible reader will put your statements in context anyway, you might as well simply state them directly.
tyre 6y ago
Having written other things that are popular doesn't answer to the OP's comment nuanced arguments are a good and helpful thing. PG doesn't pattern match as such because other people are blowhards. He's actually arrogant. Which is fine! He's been very successful enough times that it seems unlikely to be coïncidence. But he also writes essays that are complete whiffs. It's not an ego thing by the reader. There are many examples of no nuance where there is actually a hell of a lot of nuance in the subject at hand. So people quote the essays or act on them blindly because they rely on them as exhaustive when I don't think that that is the case or his actual intention.
sillysaurusx 6y ago
PG 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 PG's "responses" are a good contrast, if you're curious what "pg trying to persuade the reader" sounds like. http://paulgraham.com/kedrosky.html http://paulgraham.com/kedrosky.html

fossuser 6y ago

> "Most authors write in a "fancy" way to invoke a feeling in the reader. They don't add random words to "seem cool"." I'd bet money this is mostly wrong, and most authors are writing in a fancy way to seem fancy. That's part of the reason their writing is often bad. There are exceptions, but I'd argue that failure is the general case. > "I don't understand a thing of this." Clarity of thought without purple prose fluff? That's my take away from it anyway. Basically, most of the time extra purple prose fluff is not poetry and just gets in the way. Poetry would be an exception to this rule. This essay is also similar to another one of his from 2015 (which has more explicit examples): http://www.paulgraham.com/talk.html http://www.paulgraham.com/talk.html

ulisesrmzroche 6y ago
Actually, poetry frowns on purple prose too. Hence the “prose” part. But you can’t call adjectives and similes and metaphors all purple prose.
- fossuser 6y ago
  Sure - and there's some subjectivity to 'write simply'. The idea is good though, bias towards clarity and be aware of how complex your writing is. Don't use big words to try and seem smart or fancy because they obscure meaning - there are rare exceptions to this, but they should be intentional and rare.
  - ulisesrmzroche 6y ago
    I agree about jargon and such but PG writes without any literary devices at all. Don’t you think that’s going too far? “That dude is sneaky” “That dude is sneakier than a fox” Why cut out fox?
    - fossuser 6y ago
      I think most of the time it should be cut out, the times you leave it in should be intentional and rare. If you read stuff that's doing that kind of thing all of the time it makes it harder to read and the writing is often worse. It's something newer writers tend to do for some reason, I'm not sure why.

randomsearch 6y ago

Wow I’m amazed that you don’t have the same interpretation to me here. Perhaps the first difference between us is I immediately assumed PG is talking about transmitting ideas (argumentation or proposition), ie writing essays and not writing fiction. What I assume he means about “writing not being pure ideas”, he means there’s an overhead in transmitting ideas via writing. This is analogous to using programming languages to capture ideas, hence anything but simplicity offends because it is analogous to (in)elegance in code. I think this essay is excellent but it seems I was more attuned to his message, or at least it met my expectations.

IneffablePigeon 6y ago
Ironically, as far as I'm concerned, excellent poetry _is_ about as close as writing gets to "pure ideas" (or at the very least pure emotion). Average poetry, maybe not so much. I think, as usual, there's a lot of nuance here. I think emotion is inextricably linked to almost all forms of communication, and that there's not such a bright line between fiction and non fiction in that regard. The books that have taught me the most are not necessarily the ones with the most information density or even the most clarity of thought (although both help). The ones that have really conveyed their points effectively to me have all had an element of weaving them into a narrative that I could engage with, examine from different angles, absorb and remember. But I'm also pretty sympathetic to the idea of cutting fluff at all opportunities and getting to the root of what you want to say - that's the one thing that's improved my writing the most.
- BossingAround 6y ago
  > Ironically, as far as I'm concerned, excellent poetry _is_ about as close as writing gets to "pure ideas" (or at the very least pure emotion). Depends on the time period. I wouldn't exactly say that T. S. Eliot's poetry was about pure idea (or pure emotion). He did revel a lot in the fact that he was very educated and the readers are probably less so. Still a canonical author though.

planet-and-halo 6y ago

Writing is an imperfect technology for moving thoughts between minds. "Writing simply" is valuable if it communicates your thought more efficiently and accurately (and it is indeed a common peccadillo to write thoughts in a bloated and inefficient manner), but like you're pointing out, some thoughts are not compressible beyond a certain point. For example, here's some Ovid quoted in a book I'm reading. I'd like to hear how you could write this "simply" without losing resolution of the thought from which it originated: -------- There is no greater wonder than to range The starry heights, to leave the earth’s dull regions, To ride the clouds, to stand on Atlas’ shoulders, And see, far off, far down, the little figures Wandering here and there, devoid of reason, Anxious, in fear of death, and so advise them, And so make fate an open book… Full sail, I voyage Over the boundless ocean, and I tell you Nothing is permanent in all the world. All things are fluid; every image forms, Wandering through change. Time is itself a river In constant movement, and the hours flow by Like water, wave on wave, pursued, pursuing, Forever fugitive, forever new. That which has been, is not; that which was not, Begins to be; motion and moment always In process of renewal… Not even the so-called elements are constant… Nothing remains the same: the great renewer, Nature, makes form from form, and, oh, believe me That nothing ever dies….

mcguire 6y ago

"There is basically no argumentation happening here and most statements are just thrown out as truths." If you read through Paul's previous essays, you may notice that he falls into this habit frequently.

epr 6y ago

(you) > 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. After reading this I would expect a solid argument from you that "it's not very good writing" because "There is basically no argumentation happening" and "most statements are just thrown out as truths". (you) > Notice how he's arguing against So... is argumentation happening or not? (pg) > When you write in a fancy way to impress people, you're making them do extra work just so you can seem cool. (you) > Notice how he's arguing against "write in a fancy way to impress people" and not "write in a fancy way". He is definitely taking for granted here that everyone who is writing in a "fancy way" is doing so to impress people. At the very least, he seems to be suggesting that this is often the case. There is no question whatsoever though, that this is happening at least some of the time. (you) > Most authors write in a "fancy" way to invoke a feeling in the reader. They don't add random words to "seem cool" "Most"? According to what? Do you have anything more to support this assertion than he had to support his? Are you really in a position to be critiquing him about this? (pg) > 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. (you) > 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. There's a fair amount of implicit logic here, but i'd say the general idea is something along the lines of: - The purpose of writing (for "most writers, most of the time") is to communicate ideas. - Care ought to be taken in preventing the medium (text) from inhibiting this communication. - Simple writing can be understood by a more broad audience - Therefore, simple writing will help these writers towards their end of communicating these ideas to a broader audience (you) > Then he says that most people aim for that. No, he said "for most writers, most of the time, that's the goal to aim for". He is saying that they ought to be aiming for that. If they already were doing so, then it would go without saying. (you) > And somehow the solution is "not filled with poetry" Again, I think you are misunderstanding what he is trying to say. Building on my previous explanation, I'd say he is contrasting his ideal of simple writing with poetry, which is often cryptic. Circling back to my initial statement, I'd suggest you worry about your own arguments before criticizing those of others.

auggierose 6y ago

Of course you should write simply. But of course, the context matters. For example, when writing mathematical texts, somehow being able to convey pure ideas is the ideal. Poetry is not needed in that context, it is confusing, as the beauty is in the ideas conveyed, not in the words used to convey it. In such a context, for example using the expression "vector space" counts as writing simply, while in a general context it does not.