12 ms·

Write simply (2021)

162 points by robertwt7 4y ago

threeseed 4y ago
Also invent words wherever you can: https://twitter.com/chiefchimpanzee/status/1615709045578506243 https://twitter.com/chiefchimpanzee/status/16157090455785062...
- erk__ 4y ago
  Actually this is a point if you are not writing in English. My dad used to do some technical translations and he disliked English namely because you cannot invent words like in Danish or German, where you can just put words together to make a new one.
  - tshaddox 4y ago
    We can and regularly do invent compound words in English too. We just write them with spaces between each word. As far as I know, this is just a minor difference in orthography with little effect on the ability to create (even arbitrarily long) compounds.
    - torstenvl 4y ago
      Exactly. I once read a linguistics text that called these a particular form of complex noun phrase, but that doesn't appear to be a standard term. Regardless, English allows you to use a noun as an adjective almost anywhere, without adding any suffix. A web font (which is not a web). A computer engineer (which is not a computer). A grocery trip (which is not a grocery). And so on. This is just like other Germanic languages, we just don't erase the space between components of the word.
  - k_roy 4y ago
    haha. Just saw a meme with this recently. "Achtung! Blinkenlights! Nicht für der gefingerpoken!"
mproud 4y ago
Something a boss of mine told me once was, after drafting an email, re-read it and cut its length roughly in half. If an email isn’t succinct, no one will read it fully.
- frietzkriesler2 4y ago
  There's a cartoon about a boss' email versus an employee's. I took that to heart and started writing emails as such. Correction, grad student versus professor email.
  - Donckele 4y ago
    Something like this: https://i.pinimg.com/originals/3a/9a/e8/3a9ae804abc43be473e68c06712f6931.jpg https://i.pinimg.com/originals/3a/9a/e8/3a9ae804abc43be473e6...
    - frietzkriesler2 4y ago
      I must be completely mis remembering this. Here it is http://emailmarketingweb.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/email-comic-phd-average-time-spent-composing-one-email.gif http://emailmarketingweb.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/emai...
- imgabe 4y ago
  If you can fit it all in the subject line, even better
golem14 4y ago
I consider the books by Rudolf Flesch pretty much the final word on this issue. E.g., the art of readable writing, but there is also a book for people writing legal texts.
roxgib 4y ago
Let's not called it complex, or fancy. It's bad writing, so let's just call it that.
taesu 4y ago
amen
CityOfThrowaway 4y ago
PG is an international treasure
jimmyed 4y ago
> And remember, if you're writing in English, that a lot of your readers won't be native English speakers Just because some readers might not be proficient in English, we have to write plainly to accommodate them? What if they are seeking prose that makes them better at the language? This is a classic symptom of not having read enough literature. There is a visceral beauty in writing, and trying to place conditions on how it ought to be done is like asking of the painter how he ought to paint.
- gjs278 4y ago
  [dead]
- netr0ute 4y ago
  I don't think he wants to write simply solely because of this, but rather in order to also satisfy this. Personally, I want to write simply because it makes the end goal clearer for me to express.
- tshaddox 4y ago
  I think he’s assuming some shared context, namely writing for the purpose of educating or persuading people and aiming for engaging as many people as possible with the topic at hand. I don’t think he intends his recommendations to apply to people deliberately writing for a much narrower audience (like dense technical or academic literature) or in a particular artistic style or genre.
- xmprt 4y ago
  It depends on your end goals. Drawings can be beautiful too but if your goal is to write an instruction manual then you don't want to make something that's open to interpretation.
- k_roy 4y ago
  In a similar vein, I got to the word "saltimbocca", two paragraphs in, and was painfully and utterly bored. And frankly, skimming the rest, I found most of the "conclusions" rather insulting. Imagine a world where fancy words can both give a simple idea, as well as provide a deeper meaning to those that look. Indeed some of the most profound and lasting prose is that which paints a scene in your mind. So what brings around a better image? "The room was green". Great? Do I care? Will that last? Or "The hue of the walls enveloped the space in a lush, verdant color. It was a shade that reminiscent of spring meadows and flourishing gardens, invigorating and rejuvenating to the senses. The green was not just a simple tint, but a depth of tone that conveyed life and growth. The room felt fresh and lively, as if it were breathing with the vibrancy of nature itself. The walls seemed to glow in the light, casting a serene aura that made you feel at peace. The color was bold yet calming, creating a space that was both exhilarating and relaxing at the same time." I want to BE in this room. I can almost smell it.
paulpauper 4y ago
This may be good advice for an instruction manual or children's books, but I think good prose is something of an art in and of itself. Some of the most successful writers do the opposite. Look at the articles that go viral ..you see that the prose is varied and even complicated, not just simple. The best prose is that which conveys the intended message for the intended audience in the best way possible. I think it's also a revealed vs stated preferences problem. People state they want/like simple writing but revealed preferences show otherwise. I think the reason why so many business authors give this advice is confusing cause and effect. Writing simply does not make you successful or persuasive, but that people who are involved in business write that way naturally, but success at one does not follow from the other. Just like Bill Gates did not get rich by being good at bridge.
- ramraj07 4y ago
  Even his own article about writing simply used the word “expend” in the third sentence. Maybe I’m an indian hillybilly but that sounds quite non-simple to me lol.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
- goldfeld 4y ago
  I've been thinking about writing and about how people can learn to write well in a time of non-writing. I have a service to use AI together with expertise in guiding beginner authors, writers for whom English is not the primary language, and for experienced casual writers. There are many heuristics that can be shown to writers to make the message clear, more impactful, in essay writing, short fiction, poetry, etc. If anyone's willing to beta test the service, contact me on reddit /u/goldfeld.
- vishnugupta 4y ago
  Of late, I'm reading diverse authors, and I noticed that I get drawn to more aesthetically pleasant writings. So I'm beginning to pay more weightage and attention to the aesthetics of writing than before. Good content and pleasing aesthetics go together. It means the writer made an effort to make the writing beautiful besides bringing forth insightful points. It could also be about appreciating subtler aspects of life as I grow older. Regardless, the net result is my impressions about "write simply" suggestions are exactly what you stated.
greenie_beans 4y ago
proust would like a word
- defrost 4y ago
  inviolable Intended for a more special and a baser use, this room, from which, in the daytime, I could see as far as the keep of Roussainville-le-Pin, was for a long time my place of refuge, doubtless because it was the only room whose door Ï was allowed to lock, whenever my occupation was such as required an inviolable solitude; reading or dreaming, secret tears or paroxysms of desire. Although that's an English word from the Enright translation, but, hey, English is the new Lingua franca so I guess that'll do?
  - greenie_beans 4y ago
    i wish i knew french so i could read his stuff as it should be
wilsonnb3 4y ago
I get that this guy is like rich and famous and founded this website or something so people always post his stuff here but his writing always has this weird veneer of pseudo intellectual philosophy that I find very off putting.
- xupybd 4y ago
  Maybe I'm too simple to notice but I don't detect any pseudo intellectualism. He makes a point and talks about it. There doesn't appear to be an attempt to come off smarter than he is.
- voidhorse 4y ago
  The psuedo-intellectualism is more than just a veneer, I'm afraid, it's the real tooth of many of these pieces. pg has some decent takes on programming and one day decided that he might also have takes on things he knows far less about. These latter takes don't tend to be very good, which is unfortunate because he does actually manage to influence people.
  - inimino 4y ago
    That's a good story, but you didn't provide any evidence for it, so an anecdote like "I read his essay about [X] on which I'm an expert and it was wrong" would have more value.
    - voidhorse 4y ago
      Eh, it's an opinion that I'm not inclined to spend time or effort backing up. I do agree that if I did actually back it up, of course the post would be more valuable. Instead, I'll be lazy and say read the essays and judge for yourself, you might disagree! I'm also of the opinion that if you have even a passing familiarity with any "soft" science (communications, sociology, philosophy, literature) you'll likely find at least one essay that makes you agree with me.
      - inimino 4y ago
silisili 4y ago
In addition, one thing I personally prefer is having short 'paragraphs'. Two or three sentences, though sometimes even one suffices. I find long paragraphs a lot harder to read in most written forms, and often 'go to the next line' only to have started that line over again. For the most part, this article was written that way, whether intentional or not.
vore 4y ago
Kind of ironic he starts off with "I try to write using ordinary words and simple sentences" then dedicates an entire paragraph to making up an Italian word that really doesn't add anything to his point.
- deadbolt 4y ago
  I figured that was to quickly drive the point home. Maybe I'm giving more credit to PG than is due, but that paragraph seemed tongue-in-cheek. I feel it would be hard for anyone to miss the irony.
  - vore 4y ago
    Poe's law, etc.
- theonething 4y ago
  He used it as a metaphoric word picture and for me at least, it helped me picture in my mind what he was trying to convey in a concise and poetic way. > dedicates an entire paragraph You're technically right, but this entire paragraph consists of two sentences.
User23 4y ago
Time for another Elements of Style thunderdome! omit needless words Or in the words of the Great Dorothy Parker If you have any young friends who aspire to become writers, the second-greatest favor you can do them is to present them with copies of The Elements of Style. The first-greatest, of course, is to shoot them now, while they're happy
llasse 4y ago
"Excuse me for writing this long letter, I did not have time for a shorter one."
WiSaGaN 4y ago
One of the great small book I read about writing is: Style: Lessons in Clarity and Grace (https://www.amazon.com/Style-Lessons-Clarity-Grace-12th/dp/0134080416 https://www.amazon.com/Style-Lessons-Clarity-Grace-12th/dp/0...) It is very different from Strunk&White book in that it does not address things like whether you should place a comma or not, it teaches you about how to present you idea clear and easy to understand. In short write less like Friedrich Hayek and more like Ray Dailo. The former uses much more beautiful long sentences, but the latter's essays are more easy to read, and clearer in delivering the author's ideas.
nonrandomstring 4y ago
Simplicity is one desirable aspect of writing, which is a technology. Graham's argument seems to be that simplicity makes writing effective. It can. But effective for what? To what end? The ecstasy of communication? Enhancing reach only makes sense if you have a message. The envelope for that message might also be passionate, sincere, vivid, playful, challenging, informative, and perhaps most of all - enjoyable for the writer. But it must be addressed to something. Let's return to that first sentence. Writing is a technology. Most of the images Paul Graham's piece invokes, of dragging a heavy, tedious train behind me, apply more to any computer technology than writing. Show me today one piece of digital writing (code) that is simple, universal, transparent, and durable. There is a line between Orwell's "Politics and the English Language" and Postman's "Seven Questions About Technology", and somewhere on it is point where we ask "What is it's sincere and honest purpose?" As mobile technology and social media show, I think we've lost track of purpose and gotten obsessed with the form itself.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- Wistar 4y ago
  A look at the less-simple direction: "I do not know exactly why, in the twentieth century, the dominant fashions in English prose moved relentlessly in the direction of ever greater simplification and aesthetic minimalism. I do not even entirely regret it. Tastes change, and some of the change has been a corrective of certain excesses of the past. But, on the whole, the result has been a kind of official dogma in favor of a prose so denuded of nuance, elegance, intricacy, and originality as to be often little better than infantile, not only in vocabulary but also in artistry and expressive power—a formula, that is, for producing writers whose voices are utterly anonymous in their monotonous ordinariness. " — David Bentley Hart, The Lamp, "How To Write English Prose" https://thelampmagazine.com/blog/how-to-write-english-prose https://thelampmagazine.com/blog/how-to-write-english-prose
  - nonrandomstring 4y ago
    Thanks for that great David Bentley Hart link. I see multiple trends going on in writing. Academic "STEM" writing is getting impenetrable, not because the authors are obscuritan, but to satisfy non-functional powers; to conform to keywords, generate REF impact factors and whatnot. At the same time science journalism is pulling the other way. In an effort to dumb things down to a folksy and breathless "hey, isn't that amazing!", it ends up just wrong. In both cases the stylish tail is wagging the dog. What I read here from Bentley is something else, anticipating the corporate grey goo of soulless, value-free - "voices utterly anonymous in their monotonous ordinariness." It's a kind of linguistic self-harm. To me, that writing is not merely passive, it's actively cowardly. I've read a lot of 'perfect' resignation letters sent around email by colleagues; "I have worked for Company X for the past Y years during which time I've had the pleasure of working alongside all of you. Thank you for your wonderful support I have received over the years...." yada yada But everyone knows, just two weeks ago there was genuine concern that person might just go postal with a Samurai sword in the C-suite. What energy it must take to be that insincere to oneself. And at what cost to your soul? And after all that, it's kinda insulting to everyone too. Such corruption of words.
Hasz 4y ago
I had a similar idea and wrote about it about a year ago: https://ethan.id/writing/enguhlishishness/ https://ethan.id/writing/enguhlishishness/ Another idea I think goes along with this theme: separating the quality of the idea from the quality of the writing. It’s surprisingly difficult to do consistently, and I always try to remind myself to treat the two separately.
zug_zug 4y ago
I guess I always assumed that big-vocabulary is a sort of classism. It's no secret that people think that those who use large words and complex sentences see themselves as superior (e.g the atlantic). I know so many people who are very emotionally invested in "correct" grammar/english (semicolons, their/there, oxford comma) but only up to the point that they know and then are annoyed by those who take it 10% further than they.
- k_roy 4y ago
  > It's no secret that people think that those who use large words and complex sentences see themselves as superior (e.g the atlantic). I have a big vocabulary. Huge. Some might say the biggest ever. Point being, I don't use large words out of any sense of superiority, despite apparently everybody knowing that I do this to feel superior. In fact, I feel like an ass when someone pulls out the "Well, that's a huge word". It's embarrassing on multiple levels, and certainly not something I would strive to do on purpose. So once this has happened once or twice, I might stick to simple sentences. Am I really being classist here? Come on
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
Barrin92 4y 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. Don't think this a thing to aim for. When you write you don't just want to convey meaning by what you write, but by how you write. People express meaning through style and form, not just through content. It's very techbro-ish and it reminds me of a guy I met who replaced all his meals with Soylent because "taste and cooking is just a waste of time, this has the same nutrients". This performative simplicity that makes a virtue out of not having fun, in this case with prose is really annoying.
- dpatru 4y ago
  To the extent that writing is like playing an instrument, one should try writing simply before trying to be stylish or entertaining. And for many purposes, simple writing is enough.
ceres 4y ago
Does anyone know what CMS this website uses?
- jjice 4y ago
  My assumption was always that PG's site was just hand written HTML (really just the same template with new p tags) with a link added to the essays page.
- amadeuspagel 4y ago
  Viaweb.
Gatsky 4y ago
One new reason to ignore this advice: so people know you are not chatGPT.
fargle 4y ago
simply write.
6510 4y ago
Thus herein in response thereto I should therefore applaud the application thereof the simplicity thereat in the writings therefrom Paulus journal which to all of us appertains and inspires to use the same.
auggierose 4y ago
I think that is very good advice, but I would go even further: Try to make your ideas as simple as possible! Often we fall in love with or get used to ideas that are more complicated than they have to be. Simpler ideas often result in better and more beautiful designs. And simpler ideas can be expressed using simpler words.
ludston 4y ago
I enjoy Paul Graham essays, because even if I don't always agree with the conclusions that he has drawn, the observations made are often thought provoking and insightful. I don't personally understand the anti-intellectualism and complaints that his essays often provoke in the comment sections of this website. For example, in this essay I agreed with the main thrust and laughed at the irony of his Italian food example (which is certainly not a universal experience). Simple writing is good. Often. That's it right? There are contexts where we should strive to write more simply, and there are contexts in which we should encourage others to write simply. Does it make sense to qualify these contexts in his essay, or would the essay be any better for it? It would certainly be longer. More accurate perhaps, but better? Surely it would not be any more thought provoking to try and list all of the contexts under which a "write simply" rule ought to apply. If a reader interprets any argument to follow a general rule such as this as literal an absolutist they're doing both the author and themselves a disservice. Personally, I like to use a long word where a short word will do because it's fun. But when I write for the broadest audience it's better to follow this advice.
simultsop 4y ago
> That's why some people write that way, to conceal the fact that they have nothing to say. True it is confusing and time consuming, doing laps of reading for nothing.
camillomiller 4y ago
This is probably the 200th reposting of this anthology of trite platitudes, a banal commingling of self-entitled truths and survival bias, a self-absorbed egotistical outburst aimed at enslaving written prose to the one mere end: convincing fellow capitalists of the importance of effective communication to absolve oneself of one’s world-destroying aptitude and thirst for accruing compounding wealth.
andreyk 4y ago
Write in a way that accomplishes the goal you have in mind
Tomte 4y ago
To my inner ear it sounds choppy because there is no flow. The paragraphs do have a logical order, according to his intended argumentation, but the text would really read better if Graham would sprinkle in a few connectors.
- rosebay 4y ago
  [dead]
dang 4y ago
Discussed at the time: Write Simply - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26423090 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26423090 - March 2021 (330 comments)
euroderf 4y ago
Strunk & White gets negative comments. But I was handed a copy when I started my first job out of college, and I found some elements of it quite valuable. Perhaps most of all, to review what you have written and remove words that don't really add anything. Tightened-up prose really does make the world a better place :)
vzaliva 4y ago
There is a reason there are so many words in the dictionary. They communicate different, nuanced shades of meaning and emotion. Same with the grammar going beyond simple sentences. Dumbing down your prose, you lose all that power. Indeed, all this subtlety will be lost on the reader, who does not appreciate or understand it. So you should know your reader but aim not for the lowest possible denominator but close to the limit of their comprehension and appreciation. This way, you will have at your disposal of the full power of the language.
ly3xqhl8g9 4y ago
"it's more considerate to write simply. When you write in a fancy way to impress people" "When I write a sentence that seems too complicated, or that uses unnecessarily intellectual words, it doesn't seem fancy to me. It seems clumsy." So apparently the dimensions are writing simply ⮂ writing fancy, which actually gets reduced to writing simply ⮂ writing clumsy. This implies that any writing which is not clumsy is written simply, therefore the best samples of simply writing is something akin to Wittgenstein's Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus, Heidegger's Being and Time, or Kant's Critique of Pure Reason, for they are the pinnacle of non-clumsy word strings, no sign in those texts is extraneous, however they also are the pinnacle of extremely dense ideas, requiring multiple library shelves to be understood. Something does not follow. Although, granted, if Kant indeed gave us a specification for artificial intelligence [1] in the form of a post-medieval, transitory Latin to German compendium, a vade mecum if you will, 150+ years prior to the invention of the Turing machine, well, I suppose he couldn't write simply-er than he did. [1] https://www.doc.ic.ac.uk/~re14/Evans-R-2020-PhD-Thesis.pdf https://www.doc.ic.ac.uk/~re14/Evans-R-2020-PhD-Thesis.pdf
- amadeuspagel 4y ago
  Wittgenstein's Philosophical Investigations is simple, easy to read, doesn't have any references except in the introduction and epigraph and was also written by a rich guy.
littlelady 4y ago
One of the things missing from Mr. Graham's musings is the context, e.g. academic, business. And a at least some clarification of what fancy words and sentence structure are. Mr. Graham doesn't use the term, but purple prose odious to read and I would agree that complicated writing is often used (e.g. in academia) to obfuscate the key message and bolster weak arguments. On the other end of the spectrum too much simplicity is exhausting to read; short, unvaried sentences are boring. For informative writing, I agree that ideas should be clearly and concisely expressed for the intended audience. For this purpose I'd highly recommend "Make it Clear" by Patrick Winston, who was known for his work in AI, but also a lecture series at MIT called "How to Speak". Which words are deemed "fancy" in the English language requires knowledge of fluent English and jargon of the intended reader. For a native German speaker the word "ersatz" is commonplace, but it probably isn't familiar to many Americans. Likewise, Germans prefer "fancy" passive constructions--sentences that feel inelegant to English speakers, sound fine to Germans.
- morley 4y ago
  As a counterpoint, I think context matters the _least_. I've read a lot of business writing where the writer's mindset is clearly:I am writing for business, therefore I must sound business-like. Lots of "in terms of", "for the purpose of", "ideation", "develop needs", "affect change", "going forward". From what I hear and from what little I've read, a similar overwrought voice has developed in academia too. I've fallen into this trap before, partially to "fit in" and partially because it's hard to simplify. But many famous business communicators -- Steve Jobs and Warren Buffett come to mind -- show that clarity is more effective than sounding like the context.
  - littlelady 4y ago
    I neither intended to imply that a writer must sound exactly like their context, nor did I intend for context to be interpreted as a style that a writer should achieve or imitate. What I meant by context was: (1) For whom is the writing intended? (2) What is the purpose of the writing? (3) What is the intended tone? (1) Is the reader an academic? New to a subject? An expert? A layperson? How old are they? (2) Is the purpose of this text to inform? To persuade? To entertain? To instruct? (3) Optimistic, pessimistic, uplifting, formal, casual? The most effective communicators will have a consistent (and unique) voice whether writing a newspaper article, a college text book, or a toast. I believe strong communicators consider the context of their writing or speaking.
leed25d 4y ago
“Poor Faulkner. Does he really think big emotions come from big words? He thinks I don’t know the ten-dollar words. I know them all right. But there are older and simpler and better words, and those are the ones I use.” ― Ernest Hemingway
jxy 4y ago
From the Economist, > Out with the long > “Short words are best”, said Winston Churchill, “and old words when short are the best of all” > Oct 7th 2004 full article here: https://web.archive.org/web/20230201081635/https://www.economist.com/leaders/2004/10/07/out-with-the-long https://web.archive.org/web/20230201081635/https://www.econo...
fedeb95 4y ago
the key point is: choose your style, don't let your style choose you
webspaceadam 4y ago
The word simple jumps on me as a semantically unpractical word. Simple can mean direct, as well as short. PG refers to simple as direct, i would argue. Especially when you read the last words of this text, when he talks about editing a draft. He describes how he achieves simplicity in his writing. That's the most important aspect of this text.
Veen 4y ago
Somewhat ironically, this article isn't helpful because it oversimplifies a complex topic. Many factors contribute to "good writing" and they can't be distilled to "ordinary words and simple sentences". For example, Graham talks about simple sentences but has nothing to say about sentence cohesion, which has a far greater impact on prose quality.
ChrisMarshallNY 4y ago
It’s called “Writing in the Vernacular,” and is the way I prefer to write. It can cause issues, where precision is required, but can make it much easier to read long articles. Asimov was famous for his “science for the layman” writing, and I learned a lot from him (I liked these books, more than his fiction).
cpfohl 4y ago
One of my best undergrad professors was notorious for her one page papers. Each week a topic was assigned that could easily fill 5-10 pages. Each paper was expected to cover the same content as the full length paper. She’d take marks off for fluffy writing and for missing important research points. She had the highest impact on my writing today.
andy_ppp 4y ago
Isn’t the article making the case that pg shouldn’t be writing essays at all but making YouTube videos if he wants his ideas to be more widely absorbed? Tangentially it makes me wonder how far we are away from being able to converse with a ChatGPT avatar of Paul Graham (PgGPT) with slightly worse (better?) jokes. Finally if we’re going to discuss language I really love this Orwell Essay [1]. We are so lucky to live in a time when we can just look great pieces of work like this up. [1] 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...
- nine_k 4y ago
  I always wonder how a talking head video can be more accessible than a text. A video dictates its consumption pace (to a degree), it can't be easily quoted, it requires both your eyes and ears. I understand podcasts: they are for people who want to listen to something while driving. But you can't watch a video while driving. Possibly a video of a talking head is more convincing and engaging if you are a great stage performer, and radiate emotion like a text cannot. Possibly a video that turns an essay into a clip / movie with visuals conveying the point additionally to the text would be even.more convincing, but producing such a video is incomparably more work than writing a text, even if some magical AI produces any visuals you ask it for. It's just a much harder composition task, a symphony versus a single-voice melody.
psychoslave 4y ago
>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. Or on the other hand, people might think that your essay was pure waste of their time as far as "bringing great new ideas/perspectives" goes. And it’s OK, most things that we utter is in that case, certainly. But if you don’t pay extra effort in removing every single asperities in your prose, at least they might have a few new fancy words to play with.
65 4y ago
Not with those adverbs. The secret to good writing? Removing as many adverbs as you can.

Write simply (2021)

162 points by robertwt7 4y ago

Also invent words wherever you can: https://twitter.com/chiefchimpanzee/status/1615709045578506243 https://twitter.com/chiefchimpanzee/status/16157090455785062...

erk__ 4y ago
Actually this is a point if you are not writing in English. My dad used to do some technical translations and he disliked English namely because you cannot invent words like in Danish or German, where you can just put words together to make a new one.
- tshaddox 4y ago
  We can and regularly do invent compound words in English too. We just write them with spaces between each word. As far as I know, this is just a minor difference in orthography with little effect on the ability to create (even arbitrarily long) compounds.
  - torstenvl 4y ago
    Exactly. I once read a linguistics text that called these a particular form of complex noun phrase, but that doesn't appear to be a standard term. Regardless, English allows you to use a noun as an adjective almost anywhere, without adding any suffix. A web font (which is not a web). A computer engineer (which is not a computer). A grocery trip (which is not a grocery). And so on. This is just like other Germanic languages, we just don't erase the space between components of the word.
- k_roy 4y ago
  haha. Just saw a meme with this recently. "Achtung! Blinkenlights! Nicht für der gefingerpoken!"

mproud 4y ago

Something a boss of mine told me once was, after drafting an email, re-read it and cut its length roughly in half. If an email isn’t succinct, no one will read it fully.

frietzkriesler2 4y ago
There's a cartoon about a boss' email versus an employee's. I took that to heart and started writing emails as such. Correction, grad student versus professor email.
- Donckele 4y ago
  Something like this: https://i.pinimg.com/originals/3a/9a/e8/3a9ae804abc43be473e68c06712f6931.jpg https://i.pinimg.com/originals/3a/9a/e8/3a9ae804abc43be473e6...
  - frietzkriesler2 4y ago
    I must be completely mis remembering this. Here it is http://emailmarketingweb.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/email-comic-phd-average-time-spent-composing-one-email.gif http://emailmarketingweb.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/emai...
imgabe 4y ago
If you can fit it all in the subject line, even better

golem14 4y ago

I consider the books by Rudolf Flesch pretty much the final word on this issue. E.g., the art of readable writing, but there is also a book for people writing legal texts.

roxgib 4y ago

Let's not called it complex, or fancy. It's bad writing, so let's just call it that.

taesu 4y ago

amen

CityOfThrowaway 4y ago

PG is an international treasure

jimmyed 4y ago

> And remember, if you're writing in English, that a lot of your readers won't be native English speakers Just because some readers might not be proficient in English, we have to write plainly to accommodate them? What if they are seeking prose that makes them better at the language? This is a classic symptom of not having read enough literature. There is a visceral beauty in writing, and trying to place conditions on how it ought to be done is like asking of the painter how he ought to paint.

gjs278 4y ago
[dead]
netr0ute 4y ago
I don't think he wants to write simply solely because of this, but rather in order to also satisfy this. Personally, I want to write simply because it makes the end goal clearer for me to express.
tshaddox 4y ago
I think he’s assuming some shared context, namely writing for the purpose of educating or persuading people and aiming for engaging as many people as possible with the topic at hand. I don’t think he intends his recommendations to apply to people deliberately writing for a much narrower audience (like dense technical or academic literature) or in a particular artistic style or genre.
xmprt 4y ago
It depends on your end goals. Drawings can be beautiful too but if your goal is to write an instruction manual then you don't want to make something that's open to interpretation.
k_roy 4y ago
In a similar vein, I got to the word "saltimbocca", two paragraphs in, and was painfully and utterly bored. And frankly, skimming the rest, I found most of the "conclusions" rather insulting. Imagine a world where fancy words can both give a simple idea, as well as provide a deeper meaning to those that look. Indeed some of the most profound and lasting prose is that which paints a scene in your mind. So what brings around a better image? "The room was green". Great? Do I care? Will that last? Or "The hue of the walls enveloped the space in a lush, verdant color. It was a shade that reminiscent of spring meadows and flourishing gardens, invigorating and rejuvenating to the senses. The green was not just a simple tint, but a depth of tone that conveyed life and growth. The room felt fresh and lively, as if it were breathing with the vibrancy of nature itself. The walls seemed to glow in the light, casting a serene aura that made you feel at peace. The color was bold yet calming, creating a space that was both exhilarating and relaxing at the same time." I want to BE in this room. I can almost smell it.

paulpauper 4y ago

This may be good advice for an instruction manual or children's books, but I think good prose is something of an art in and of itself. Some of the most successful writers do the opposite. Look at the articles that go viral ..you see that the prose is varied and even complicated, not just simple. The best prose is that which conveys the intended message for the intended audience in the best way possible. I think it's also a revealed vs stated preferences problem. People state they want/like simple writing but revealed preferences show otherwise. I think the reason why so many business authors give this advice is confusing cause and effect. Writing simply does not make you successful or persuasive, but that people who are involved in business write that way naturally, but success at one does not follow from the other. Just like Bill Gates did not get rich by being good at bridge.

ramraj07 4y ago
Even his own article about writing simply used the word “expend” in the third sentence. Maybe I’m an indian hillybilly but that sounds quite non-simple to me lol.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
goldfeld 4y ago
I've been thinking about writing and about how people can learn to write well in a time of non-writing. I have a service to use AI together with expertise in guiding beginner authors, writers for whom English is not the primary language, and for experienced casual writers. There are many heuristics that can be shown to writers to make the message clear, more impactful, in essay writing, short fiction, poetry, etc. If anyone's willing to beta test the service, contact me on reddit /u/goldfeld.
vishnugupta 4y ago
Of late, I'm reading diverse authors, and I noticed that I get drawn to more aesthetically pleasant writings. So I'm beginning to pay more weightage and attention to the aesthetics of writing than before. Good content and pleasing aesthetics go together. It means the writer made an effort to make the writing beautiful besides bringing forth insightful points. It could also be about appreciating subtler aspects of life as I grow older. Regardless, the net result is my impressions about "write simply" suggestions are exactly what you stated.

greenie_beans 4y ago

proust would like a word

defrost 4y ago
inviolable Intended for a more special and a baser use, this room, from which, in the daytime, I could see as far as the keep of Roussainville-le-Pin, was for a long time my place of refuge, doubtless because it was the only room whose door Ï was allowed to lock, whenever my occupation was such as required an inviolable solitude; reading or dreaming, secret tears or paroxysms of desire. Although that's an English word from the Enright translation, but, hey, English is the new Lingua franca so I guess that'll do?
- greenie_beans 4y ago
  i wish i knew french so i could read his stuff as it should be

wilsonnb3 4y ago

I get that this guy is like rich and famous and founded this website or something so people always post his stuff here but his writing always has this weird veneer of pseudo intellectual philosophy that I find very off putting.

xupybd 4y ago
Maybe I'm too simple to notice but I don't detect any pseudo intellectualism. He makes a point and talks about it. There doesn't appear to be an attempt to come off smarter than he is.
voidhorse 4y ago
The psuedo-intellectualism is more than just a veneer, I'm afraid, it's the real tooth of many of these pieces. pg has some decent takes on programming and one day decided that he might also have takes on things he knows far less about. These latter takes don't tend to be very good, which is unfortunate because he does actually manage to influence people.
- inimino 4y ago
  That's a good story, but you didn't provide any evidence for it, so an anecdote like "I read his essay about [X] on which I'm an expert and it was wrong" would have more value.
  - voidhorse 4y ago
    Eh, it's an opinion that I'm not inclined to spend time or effort backing up. I do agree that if I did actually back it up, of course the post would be more valuable. Instead, I'll be lazy and say read the essays and judge for yourself, you might disagree! I'm also of the opinion that if you have even a passing familiarity with any "soft" science (communications, sociology, philosophy, literature) you'll likely find at least one essay that makes you agree with me.
    - inimino 4y ago

silisili 4y ago

In addition, one thing I personally prefer is having short 'paragraphs'. Two or three sentences, though sometimes even one suffices. I find long paragraphs a lot harder to read in most written forms, and often 'go to the next line' only to have started that line over again. For the most part, this article was written that way, whether intentional or not.

vore 4y ago

Kind of ironic he starts off with "I try to write using ordinary words and simple sentences" then dedicates an entire paragraph to making up an Italian word that really doesn't add anything to his point.

deadbolt 4y ago
I figured that was to quickly drive the point home. Maybe I'm giving more credit to PG than is due, but that paragraph seemed tongue-in-cheek. I feel it would be hard for anyone to miss the irony.
- vore 4y ago
  Poe's law, etc.
theonething 4y ago
He used it as a metaphoric word picture and for me at least, it helped me picture in my mind what he was trying to convey in a concise and poetic way. > dedicates an entire paragraph You're technically right, but this entire paragraph consists of two sentences.

User23 4y ago

Time for another Elements of Style thunderdome! omit needless words Or in the words of the Great Dorothy Parker If you have any young friends who aspire to become writers, the second-greatest favor you can do them is to present them with copies of The Elements of Style. The first-greatest, of course, is to shoot them now, while they're happy

llasse 4y ago

"Excuse me for writing this long letter, I did not have time for a shorter one."

WiSaGaN 4y ago

One of the great small book I read about writing is: Style: Lessons in Clarity and Grace (https://www.amazon.com/Style-Lessons-Clarity-Grace-12th/dp/0134080416 https://www.amazon.com/Style-Lessons-Clarity-Grace-12th/dp/0...) It is very different from Strunk&White book in that it does not address things like whether you should place a comma or not, it teaches you about how to present you idea clear and easy to understand. In short write less like Friedrich Hayek and more like Ray Dailo. The former uses much more beautiful long sentences, but the latter's essays are more easy to read, and clearer in delivering the author's ideas.

nonrandomstring 4y ago

Simplicity is one desirable aspect of writing, which is a technology. Graham's argument seems to be that simplicity makes writing effective. It can. But effective for what? To what end? The ecstasy of communication? Enhancing reach only makes sense if you have a message. The envelope for that message might also be passionate, sincere, vivid, playful, challenging, informative, and perhaps most of all - enjoyable for the writer. But it must be addressed to something. Let's return to that first sentence. Writing is a technology. Most of the images Paul Graham's piece invokes, of dragging a heavy, tedious train behind me, apply more to any computer technology than writing. Show me today one piece of digital writing (code) that is simple, universal, transparent, and durable. There is a line between Orwell's "Politics and the English Language" and Postman's "Seven Questions About Technology", and somewhere on it is point where we ask "What is it's sincere and honest purpose?" As mobile technology and social media show, I think we've lost track of purpose and gotten obsessed with the form itself.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
Wistar 4y ago
A look at the less-simple direction: "I do not know exactly why, in the twentieth century, the dominant fashions in English prose moved relentlessly in the direction of ever greater simplification and aesthetic minimalism. I do not even entirely regret it. Tastes change, and some of the change has been a corrective of certain excesses of the past. But, on the whole, the result has been a kind of official dogma in favor of a prose so denuded of nuance, elegance, intricacy, and originality as to be often little better than infantile, not only in vocabulary but also in artistry and expressive power—a formula, that is, for producing writers whose voices are utterly anonymous in their monotonous ordinariness. " — David Bentley Hart, The Lamp, "How To Write English Prose" https://thelampmagazine.com/blog/how-to-write-english-prose https://thelampmagazine.com/blog/how-to-write-english-prose
- nonrandomstring 4y ago
  Thanks for that great David Bentley Hart link. I see multiple trends going on in writing. Academic "STEM" writing is getting impenetrable, not because the authors are obscuritan, but to satisfy non-functional powers; to conform to keywords, generate REF impact factors and whatnot. At the same time science journalism is pulling the other way. In an effort to dumb things down to a folksy and breathless "hey, isn't that amazing!", it ends up just wrong. In both cases the stylish tail is wagging the dog. What I read here from Bentley is something else, anticipating the corporate grey goo of soulless, value-free - "voices utterly anonymous in their monotonous ordinariness." It's a kind of linguistic self-harm. To me, that writing is not merely passive, it's actively cowardly. I've read a lot of 'perfect' resignation letters sent around email by colleagues; "I have worked for Company X for the past Y years during which time I've had the pleasure of working alongside all of you. Thank you for your wonderful support I have received over the years...." yada yada But everyone knows, just two weeks ago there was genuine concern that person might just go postal with a Samurai sword in the C-suite. What energy it must take to be that insincere to oneself. And at what cost to your soul? And after all that, it's kinda insulting to everyone too. Such corruption of words.

Hasz 4y ago

I had a similar idea and wrote about it about a year ago: https://ethan.id/writing/enguhlishishness/ https://ethan.id/writing/enguhlishishness/ Another idea I think goes along with this theme: separating the quality of the idea from the quality of the writing. It’s surprisingly difficult to do consistently, and I always try to remind myself to treat the two separately.

zug_zug 4y ago

I guess I always assumed that big-vocabulary is a sort of classism. It's no secret that people think that those who use large words and complex sentences see themselves as superior (e.g the atlantic). I know so many people who are very emotionally invested in "correct" grammar/english (semicolons, their/there, oxford comma) but only up to the point that they know and then are annoyed by those who take it 10% further than they.

k_roy 4y ago
> It's no secret that people think that those who use large words and complex sentences see themselves as superior (e.g the atlantic). I have a big vocabulary. Huge. Some might say the biggest ever. Point being, I don't use large words out of any sense of superiority, despite apparently everybody knowing that I do this to feel superior. In fact, I feel like an ass when someone pulls out the "Well, that's a huge word". It's embarrassing on multiple levels, and certainly not something I would strive to do on purpose. So once this has happened once or twice, I might stick to simple sentences. Am I really being classist here? Come on

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

Barrin92 4y 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. Don't think this a thing to aim for. When you write you don't just want to convey meaning by what you write, but by how you write. People express meaning through style and form, not just through content. It's very techbro-ish and it reminds me of a guy I met who replaced all his meals with Soylent because "taste and cooking is just a waste of time, this has the same nutrients". This performative simplicity that makes a virtue out of not having fun, in this case with prose is really annoying.

dpatru 4y ago
To the extent that writing is like playing an instrument, one should try writing simply before trying to be stylish or entertaining. And for many purposes, simple writing is enough.

ceres 4y ago

Does anyone know what CMS this website uses?

jjice 4y ago
My assumption was always that PG's site was just hand written HTML (really just the same template with new p tags) with a link added to the essays page.
amadeuspagel 4y ago
Viaweb.

Gatsky 4y ago

One new reason to ignore this advice: so people know you are not chatGPT.

fargle 4y ago

simply write.

6510 4y ago

Thus herein in response thereto I should therefore applaud the application thereof the simplicity thereat in the writings therefrom Paulus journal which to all of us appertains and inspires to use the same.

auggierose 4y ago

I think that is very good advice, but I would go even further: Try to make your ideas as simple as possible! Often we fall in love with or get used to ideas that are more complicated than they have to be. Simpler ideas often result in better and more beautiful designs. And simpler ideas can be expressed using simpler words.

ludston 4y ago

I enjoy Paul Graham essays, because even if I don't always agree with the conclusions that he has drawn, the observations made are often thought provoking and insightful. I don't personally understand the anti-intellectualism and complaints that his essays often provoke in the comment sections of this website. For example, in this essay I agreed with the main thrust and laughed at the irony of his Italian food example (which is certainly not a universal experience). Simple writing is good. Often. That's it right? There are contexts where we should strive to write more simply, and there are contexts in which we should encourage others to write simply. Does it make sense to qualify these contexts in his essay, or would the essay be any better for it? It would certainly be longer. More accurate perhaps, but better? Surely it would not be any more thought provoking to try and list all of the contexts under which a "write simply" rule ought to apply. If a reader interprets any argument to follow a general rule such as this as literal an absolutist they're doing both the author and themselves a disservice. Personally, I like to use a long word where a short word will do because it's fun. But when I write for the broadest audience it's better to follow this advice.

simultsop 4y ago

> That's why some people write that way, to conceal the fact that they have nothing to say. True it is confusing and time consuming, doing laps of reading for nothing.

camillomiller 4y ago

This is probably the 200th reposting of this anthology of trite platitudes, a banal commingling of self-entitled truths and survival bias, a self-absorbed egotistical outburst aimed at enslaving written prose to the one mere end: convincing fellow capitalists of the importance of effective communication to absolve oneself of one’s world-destroying aptitude and thirst for accruing compounding wealth.

andreyk 4y ago

Write in a way that accomplishes the goal you have in mind

Tomte 4y ago

To my inner ear it sounds choppy because there is no flow. The paragraphs do have a logical order, according to his intended argumentation, but the text would really read better if Graham would sprinkle in a few connectors.

rosebay 4y ago
[dead]

dang 4y ago

Discussed at the time: Write Simply - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26423090 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26423090 - March 2021 (330 comments)

euroderf 4y ago

Strunk & White gets negative comments. But I was handed a copy when I started my first job out of college, and I found some elements of it quite valuable. Perhaps most of all, to review what you have written and remove words that don't really add anything. Tightened-up prose really does make the world a better place :)

vzaliva 4y ago

There is a reason there are so many words in the dictionary. They communicate different, nuanced shades of meaning and emotion. Same with the grammar going beyond simple sentences. Dumbing down your prose, you lose all that power. Indeed, all this subtlety will be lost on the reader, who does not appreciate or understand it. So you should know your reader but aim not for the lowest possible denominator but close to the limit of their comprehension and appreciation. This way, you will have at your disposal of the full power of the language.

ly3xqhl8g9 4y ago

"it's more considerate to write simply. When you write in a fancy way to impress people" "When I write a sentence that seems too complicated, or that uses unnecessarily intellectual words, it doesn't seem fancy to me. It seems clumsy." So apparently the dimensions are writing simply ⮂ writing fancy, which actually gets reduced to writing simply ⮂ writing clumsy. This implies that any writing which is not clumsy is written simply, therefore the best samples of simply writing is something akin to Wittgenstein's Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus, Heidegger's Being and Time, or Kant's Critique of Pure Reason, for they are the pinnacle of non-clumsy word strings, no sign in those texts is extraneous, however they also are the pinnacle of extremely dense ideas, requiring multiple library shelves to be understood. Something does not follow. Although, granted, if Kant indeed gave us a specification for artificial intelligence [1] in the form of a post-medieval, transitory Latin to German compendium, a vade mecum if you will, 150+ years prior to the invention of the Turing machine, well, I suppose he couldn't write simply-er than he did. [1] https://www.doc.ic.ac.uk/~re14/Evans-R-2020-PhD-Thesis.pdf https://www.doc.ic.ac.uk/~re14/Evans-R-2020-PhD-Thesis.pdf

amadeuspagel 4y ago
Wittgenstein's Philosophical Investigations is simple, easy to read, doesn't have any references except in the introduction and epigraph and was also written by a rich guy.

littlelady 4y ago

One of the things missing from Mr. Graham's musings is the context, e.g. academic, business. And a at least some clarification of what fancy words and sentence structure are. Mr. Graham doesn't use the term, but purple prose odious to read and I would agree that complicated writing is often used (e.g. in academia) to obfuscate the key message and bolster weak arguments. On the other end of the spectrum too much simplicity is exhausting to read; short, unvaried sentences are boring. For informative writing, I agree that ideas should be clearly and concisely expressed for the intended audience. For this purpose I'd highly recommend "Make it Clear" by Patrick Winston, who was known for his work in AI, but also a lecture series at MIT called "How to Speak". Which words are deemed "fancy" in the English language requires knowledge of fluent English and jargon of the intended reader. For a native German speaker the word "ersatz" is commonplace, but it probably isn't familiar to many Americans. Likewise, Germans prefer "fancy" passive constructions--sentences that feel inelegant to English speakers, sound fine to Germans.

morley 4y ago
As a counterpoint, I think context matters the _least_. I've read a lot of business writing where the writer's mindset is clearly:I am writing for business, therefore I must sound business-like. Lots of "in terms of", "for the purpose of", "ideation", "develop needs", "affect change", "going forward". From what I hear and from what little I've read, a similar overwrought voice has developed in academia too. I've fallen into this trap before, partially to "fit in" and partially because it's hard to simplify. But many famous business communicators -- Steve Jobs and Warren Buffett come to mind -- show that clarity is more effective than sounding like the context.
- littlelady 4y ago
  I neither intended to imply that a writer must sound exactly like their context, nor did I intend for context to be interpreted as a style that a writer should achieve or imitate. What I meant by context was: (1) For whom is the writing intended? (2) What is the purpose of the writing? (3) What is the intended tone? (1) Is the reader an academic? New to a subject? An expert? A layperson? How old are they? (2) Is the purpose of this text to inform? To persuade? To entertain? To instruct? (3) Optimistic, pessimistic, uplifting, formal, casual? The most effective communicators will have a consistent (and unique) voice whether writing a newspaper article, a college text book, or a toast. I believe strong communicators consider the context of their writing or speaking.

leed25d 4y ago

“Poor Faulkner. Does he really think big emotions come from big words? He thinks I don’t know the ten-dollar words. I know them all right. But there are older and simpler and better words, and those are the ones I use.” ― Ernest Hemingway

jxy 4y ago

From the Economist, > Out with the long > “Short words are best”, said Winston Churchill, “and old words when short are the best of all” > Oct 7th 2004 full article here: https://web.archive.org/web/20230201081635/https://www.economist.com/leaders/2004/10/07/out-with-the-long https://web.archive.org/web/20230201081635/https://www.econo...

fedeb95 4y ago

the key point is: choose your style, don't let your style choose you

webspaceadam 4y ago

The word simple jumps on me as a semantically unpractical word. Simple can mean direct, as well as short. PG refers to simple as direct, i would argue. Especially when you read the last words of this text, when he talks about editing a draft. He describes how he achieves simplicity in his writing. That's the most important aspect of this text.

Veen 4y ago

Somewhat ironically, this article isn't helpful because it oversimplifies a complex topic. Many factors contribute to "good writing" and they can't be distilled to "ordinary words and simple sentences". For example, Graham talks about simple sentences but has nothing to say about sentence cohesion, which has a far greater impact on prose quality.

ChrisMarshallNY 4y ago

It’s called “Writing in the Vernacular,” and is the way I prefer to write. It can cause issues, where precision is required, but can make it much easier to read long articles. Asimov was famous for his “science for the layman” writing, and I learned a lot from him (I liked these books, more than his fiction).

cpfohl 4y ago

One of my best undergrad professors was notorious for her one page papers. Each week a topic was assigned that could easily fill 5-10 pages. Each paper was expected to cover the same content as the full length paper. She’d take marks off for fluffy writing and for missing important research points. She had the highest impact on my writing today.

andy_ppp 4y ago

Isn’t the article making the case that pg shouldn’t be writing essays at all but making YouTube videos if he wants his ideas to be more widely absorbed? Tangentially it makes me wonder how far we are away from being able to converse with a ChatGPT avatar of Paul Graham (PgGPT) with slightly worse (better?) jokes. Finally if we’re going to discuss language I really love this Orwell Essay [1]. We are so lucky to live in a time when we can just look great pieces of work like this up. [1] 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...

nine_k 4y ago
I always wonder how a talking head video can be more accessible than a text. A video dictates its consumption pace (to a degree), it can't be easily quoted, it requires both your eyes and ears. I understand podcasts: they are for people who want to listen to something while driving. But you can't watch a video while driving. Possibly a video of a talking head is more convincing and engaging if you are a great stage performer, and radiate emotion like a text cannot. Possibly a video that turns an essay into a clip / movie with visuals conveying the point additionally to the text would be even.more convincing, but producing such a video is incomparably more work than writing a text, even if some magical AI produces any visuals you ask it for. It's just a much harder composition task, a symphony versus a single-voice melody.

psychoslave 4y ago

>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. Or on the other hand, people might think that your essay was pure waste of their time as far as "bringing great new ideas/perspectives" goes. And it’s OK, most things that we utter is in that case, certainly. But if you don’t pay extra effort in removing every single asperities in your prose, at least they might have a few new fancy words to play with.

65 4y ago

Not with those adverbs. The secret to good writing? Removing as many adverbs as you can.