4 ms·

> 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

> 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.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- fartymcfly 4y ago
  Mr. Graham's article reads like a child's blog post. It's an attempted philosophical appeal with supporting details that consist of pure opinion. I think it can be summarized as an appeal to Paul Graham's authority, were that an established logical fallacy. Having read a lot of Paul Graham's shit over the years-links in HackerNews, I get the impression that this guy just likes to write for the sake of writing. But it makes me ask: why does his stuff consistently make it to the top of HN? Were it anyone else, the comment section would be rife with the ilk (pardon my unsimple Scottish!) of, "Why does this site not have a valid SSL certificate?"
- Swizec 4y ago
  Good writing is hard. Word choice is more about style and vibe than good writing. For example, I can tell from your first paragraph that the character is a little boring, a bit plan. They get to the point and don’t have time to mess around. The character in your second paragraph is a pompous ass, they think highly of themselves, perhaps love to hear themselves think. Like a teenager who discovered depth and can’t wait to tell everyone. Both can be fine. It depends. Personally I like it when authors have something to say and don’t hide behind grand flourishes. Use the big words where they shine, stand out, and make a point. Let your story do the work, not your words. But that’s me. Some people like to slug it out with the author in page after page of inscrutable prose. Hell, just look at Ulysses. edit: You can use variations in style also. A character that talks like your second paragraph, but when their grandma asks about the room they go "It was green." Oooof sizzle. Drama! What happened here!? Tell me more.
  - k_roy 4y ago
    lol. I was trying to make a bit of a contrast, but I dunno if I'd go so far as to say "pompous ass". Ultimately you have a good point. My second example was over-the-top, and the first was over-simplified. I think it's safe to say there can be some middle-ground. Or at least not "yo dawg, write simple bro, because words be hard" as a teenager close to me might say.
voidhorse 4y ago
I'm convinced there are two broad camps of people: those who see writing merely as a means to an end, those who view it as an artform. The people in the first camp tend to focus on some fabricated idea of concrete meaning (they tend to think the meanings of words are more rigid than they actually are), they emphasize simple words and love economy of prose. They tend to pump out business-speak articles and like using simple metaphors that are temporally bound to the present. They also indulge in what I'd call (in my own business speak) "lite-jargon" --industry terminology in vogue, etc. Most of all, they think writing is purely a vehicle for thought and should require as little work as possible to read and should immediately convey some pristine, concrete insight. They don't really understand how language works. They are thinkers first and writers second. The other camp values writing in and of itself. They can sense the richness of words, the flexibility of meanings, the pliability of structure. They know that words are not containers of thought but are in fact co-constitutive of thought. They appreciate style and innovation at the level of the text itself. A plain idea put beautifully is more interesting to them than a beautiful idea put plainly. They can appreciate poetry, which is more economical than the bloodless prose those in the first camp worship, and yet far more interesting. When it comes to prose, they desire work that proves its linguistic creativity more than its intention or "meaning". Those in this camp are writers first and thinkers second. Personally, I find the writing of everyone in the first camp completely agonizing and I lament every article that expounds the benefits of well-oiled plain-jane clarity above all. To me, trying to strive for some ultimate clarity in writing always stunk of massive denial of the fact that meaning is extremely fuzzy in general and that's part of what makes it all fun.
- chefandy 4y ago
  Those two camps don't exist. There are compelling copywriters and boring poets. Amateurish writers stuffing $10 words into overwrought sentences read like word processing documents set in script fonts. Read Hemingway and reconsider.
- DrBenCarson 4y ago
  There's a middle ground. We write to communicate, but the way we write can communicate something as well. Style, word choice, punctuation also say something to the reader. Reducing language to the lowest common denominator risks losing complex thoughts that are best communicated in complex language. At the end of the day, know your audience. Are you communicating something to the largest possible group of people or people interested in a niche topic that you're passionate about?
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
chefandy 4y ago
Nobody told you to dumb down poetry or artistic prose in which complex word usage conveys artistic meaning. Don't act oppressed because someone says we should consider the accessibility of our writing. If your writing conveys information and ideas that can be expressed simply, purple prose is probably an unwanted distraction for native speakers and an unnecessary barrier for non-native speakers. Use the right tools for the task.

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.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
fartymcfly 4y ago
Mr. Graham's article reads like a child's blog post. It's an attempted philosophical appeal with supporting details that consist of pure opinion. I think it can be summarized as an appeal to Paul Graham's authority, were that an established logical fallacy. Having read a lot of Paul Graham's shit over the years-links in HackerNews, I get the impression that this guy just likes to write for the sake of writing. But it makes me ask: why does his stuff consistently make it to the top of HN? Were it anyone else, the comment section would be rife with the ilk (pardon my unsimple Scottish!) of, "Why does this site not have a valid SSL certificate?"
Swizec 4y ago
Good writing is hard. Word choice is more about style and vibe than good writing. For example, I can tell from your first paragraph that the character is a little boring, a bit plan. They get to the point and don’t have time to mess around. The character in your second paragraph is a pompous ass, they think highly of themselves, perhaps love to hear themselves think. Like a teenager who discovered depth and can’t wait to tell everyone. Both can be fine. It depends. Personally I like it when authors have something to say and don’t hide behind grand flourishes. Use the big words where they shine, stand out, and make a point. Let your story do the work, not your words. But that’s me. Some people like to slug it out with the author in page after page of inscrutable prose. Hell, just look at Ulysses. edit: You can use variations in style also. A character that talks like your second paragraph, but when their grandma asks about the room they go "It was green." Oooof sizzle. Drama! What happened here!? Tell me more.
- k_roy 4y ago
  lol. I was trying to make a bit of a contrast, but I dunno if I'd go so far as to say "pompous ass". Ultimately you have a good point. My second example was over-the-top, and the first was over-simplified. I think it's safe to say there can be some middle-ground. Or at least not "yo dawg, write simple bro, because words be hard" as a teenager close to me might say.

voidhorse 4y ago

I'm convinced there are two broad camps of people: those who see writing merely as a means to an end, those who view it as an artform. The people in the first camp tend to focus on some fabricated idea of concrete meaning (they tend to think the meanings of words are more rigid than they actually are), they emphasize simple words and love economy of prose. They tend to pump out business-speak articles and like using simple metaphors that are temporally bound to the present. They also indulge in what I'd call (in my own business speak) "lite-jargon" --industry terminology in vogue, etc. Most of all, they think writing is purely a vehicle for thought and should require as little work as possible to read and should immediately convey some pristine, concrete insight. They don't really understand how language works. They are thinkers first and writers second. The other camp values writing in and of itself. They can sense the richness of words, the flexibility of meanings, the pliability of structure. They know that words are not containers of thought but are in fact co-constitutive of thought. They appreciate style and innovation at the level of the text itself. A plain idea put beautifully is more interesting to them than a beautiful idea put plainly. They can appreciate poetry, which is more economical than the bloodless prose those in the first camp worship, and yet far more interesting. When it comes to prose, they desire work that proves its linguistic creativity more than its intention or "meaning". Those in this camp are writers first and thinkers second. Personally, I find the writing of everyone in the first camp completely agonizing and I lament every article that expounds the benefits of well-oiled plain-jane clarity above all. To me, trying to strive for some ultimate clarity in writing always stunk of massive denial of the fact that meaning is extremely fuzzy in general and that's part of what makes it all fun.

chefandy 4y ago
Those two camps don't exist. There are compelling copywriters and boring poets. Amateurish writers stuffing $10 words into overwrought sentences read like word processing documents set in script fonts. Read Hemingway and reconsider.
DrBenCarson 4y ago
There's a middle ground. We write to communicate, but the way we write can communicate something as well. Style, word choice, punctuation also say something to the reader. Reducing language to the lowest common denominator risks losing complex thoughts that are best communicated in complex language. At the end of the day, know your audience. Are you communicating something to the largest possible group of people or people interested in a niche topic that you're passionate about?

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

chefandy 4y ago

Nobody told you to dumb down poetry or artistic prose in which complex word usage conveys artistic meaning. Don't act oppressed because someone says we should consider the accessibility of our writing. If your writing conveys information and ideas that can be expressed simply, purple prose is probably an unwanted distraction for native speakers and an unnecessary barrier for non-native speakers. Use the right tools for the task.