3 ms·

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 effecti

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.

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.