4 ms·

After reading through it doesn't feel like there is much content in his writing, anybody else have this feeling?

by light3 18y ago

kajecounterhack 18y ago
Absolutely disagree. I read the entire book (24 chapters) this summer in preparation for AP English. It's a must-read for anyone writing non-fiction. That means businessowners too: there's one part about not using tangly words just to sound more professional. There's also stuff about not using "quotes" like that, and about word choice. Everyone, especially bloggers, would benefit from reading this book. It's simply brilliant, and I highly recommend it.
- raffi 18y ago
  I really like Write to the Point by Bill Stott. Agreed that every hacker should work to improve themselves as writers.
TomOfTTB 18y ago
Ummm...No, I don't. I'll be honest, I have to resisit the temptation to be rude here because I think so highly of the book that it makes me inclined to just tear you apart. But that inhibits my ability to defend it point by point (since going point by point I would end up tearing you apart) But needless to say the book has been used in writing classes (and has been constantly in print) for 33 years so I think the criticism that there's "isn't much content" is unfounded.
- unalone 18y ago
  When you argue against his point, cite his writing. When you argue writing, talk about the writing and nothing but the writing. As the book Lies My Teacher Told Me elegantly shows, many history books that have existed for decades are thoroughly incorrect and yet are still used by teachers. Length of use can be a good sign, but it isn't necessarily. "the book has been used in writing classes (and has been constantly in print) for 33 years so I think the criticism that there's "isn't much content" is unfounded" is an ad hominem argument. If you're going to tear him apart, do it. We won't mind. That always leads to good discussion. But don't say you could and then don't.
  - TomOfTTB 18y ago
    Incorrect is not the same as "without content" (which is what the original author claimed). Something can be incorrect and still be taught because it contains content (albeit false content). Something that is without content can't be taught because teaching something requires gleening the meaning from the writing and then repositioning it in dialogue. Finally, tearing someone apart rarely leads to good discussion. What it leads to is entertaining discussion (e.g. people on the sidelines take pleasure in watching two people cause harm to each other). Or put more simply, tearing someone apart is about emotion while good discussion is about intellect
    - unalone 18y ago
      Okay, fair enough. (I would argue that you can tear somebody apart and still keep it intellectual.)
    - trominos 18y ago
      "Something that is without content can't be taught because teaching something requires gleening the meaning from the writing and then repositioning it in dialogue." If it's literally contentless, okay. But something that merely has low levels of content can definitely be taught; the teacher just has to pad out the content with any of a number of time-wasters. As somebody who went to high school, I can attest that this is not very hard to do. This particular book (or at least its excerpt) suffers, in my opinion, from an excess of examples and the occasional restatement. That's not to say that it's a bad book. Virtually all nonfiction, other than textbooks, has this problem (and as a result I very rarely actually finish a nonfictional book). I think that many of the author's points are valuable even for competent writers. But it is kind of bloated.
unalone 18y ago
It's funny, because I have the exact opposite reaction. I think he makes good points, but ruins it in that his own style is cluttered and more complex than it needs to be. It's still great advice to follow: I see it as "do as I say, not as I do."
- light3 18y ago
  He makes good points no doubt, but the article just seemed a little long winded to me, maybe the book is better.
  - unalone 18y ago
    Long-winded's the right way to put it. He could have said less and still carried his points.
- gabrielroth 18y ago
  I agree, and I felt the same way when I read the whole book. It was hard for me to learn anything about writing from someone whose own style is so flabby. But the substance of his advice is good, and anyone who enjoys the style would probably benefit from reading it. It's just kind of ironic that he's unable to apply his own instructions.
  - unalone 18y ago
    Is it similar to Elements of Style in its focus? (That book, of course, had the most perfect phrasing: "Omit needless words.")
    - gabrielroth 18y ago
      According to my recollection, there's less of the nuts-&-bolts-of-grammar and more about substance. E.g. Zinsser spends a lot of time arguing that you have to have a deep understanding of a subject, and be able to think well about it, to write well about it. Which ... sure, no doubt. But, um, not that helpful? (At least not to me at the time.) It's been a long time, though, and the book apparently has many fans on this board who surely know it much better than I do. But no, less technical and more discursive than Strunk & White.

After reading through it doesn't feel like there is much content in his writing, anybody else have this feeling?

by light3 18y ago

After reading through it doesn't feel like there is much content in his writing, anybody else have this feeling?

Absolutely disagree. I read the entire book (24 chapters) this summer in preparation for AP English. It's a must-read for anyone writing non-fiction. That means businessowners too: there's one part about not using tangly words just to sound more professional. There's also stuff about not using "quotes" like that, and about word choice. Everyone, especially bloggers, would benefit from reading this book. It's simply brilliant, and I highly recommend it.

raffi 18y ago
I really like Write to the Point by Bill Stott. Agreed that every hacker should work to improve themselves as writers.

TomOfTTB 18y ago

Ummm...No, I don't. I'll be honest, I have to resisit the temptation to be rude here because I think so highly of the book that it makes me inclined to just tear you apart. But that inhibits my ability to defend it point by point (since going point by point I would end up tearing you apart) But needless to say the book has been used in writing classes (and has been constantly in print) for 33 years so I think the criticism that there's "isn't much content" is unfounded.

unalone 18y ago
When you argue against his point, cite his writing. When you argue writing, talk about the writing and nothing but the writing. As the book Lies My Teacher Told Me elegantly shows, many history books that have existed for decades are thoroughly incorrect and yet are still used by teachers. Length of use can be a good sign, but it isn't necessarily. "the book has been used in writing classes (and has been constantly in print) for 33 years so I think the criticism that there's "isn't much content" is unfounded" is an ad hominem argument. If you're going to tear him apart, do it. We won't mind. That always leads to good discussion. But don't say you could and then don't.
- TomOfTTB 18y ago
  Incorrect is not the same as "without content" (which is what the original author claimed). Something can be incorrect and still be taught because it contains content (albeit false content). Something that is without content can't be taught because teaching something requires gleening the meaning from the writing and then repositioning it in dialogue. Finally, tearing someone apart rarely leads to good discussion. What it leads to is entertaining discussion (e.g. people on the sidelines take pleasure in watching two people cause harm to each other). Or put more simply, tearing someone apart is about emotion while good discussion is about intellect
  - unalone 18y ago
    Okay, fair enough. (I would argue that you can tear somebody apart and still keep it intellectual.)
  - trominos 18y ago
    "Something that is without content can't be taught because teaching something requires gleening the meaning from the writing and then repositioning it in dialogue." If it's literally contentless, okay. But something that merely has low levels of content can definitely be taught; the teacher just has to pad out the content with any of a number of time-wasters. As somebody who went to high school, I can attest that this is not very hard to do. This particular book (or at least its excerpt) suffers, in my opinion, from an excess of examples and the occasional restatement. That's not to say that it's a bad book. Virtually all nonfiction, other than textbooks, has this problem (and as a result I very rarely actually finish a nonfictional book). I think that many of the author's points are valuable even for competent writers. But it is kind of bloated.

unalone 18y ago

It's funny, because I have the exact opposite reaction. I think he makes good points, but ruins it in that his own style is cluttered and more complex than it needs to be. It's still great advice to follow: I see it as "do as I say, not as I do."

light3 18y ago
He makes good points no doubt, but the article just seemed a little long winded to me, maybe the book is better.
- unalone 18y ago
  Long-winded's the right way to put it. He could have said less and still carried his points.
gabrielroth 18y ago
I agree, and I felt the same way when I read the whole book. It was hard for me to learn anything about writing from someone whose own style is so flabby. But the substance of his advice is good, and anyone who enjoys the style would probably benefit from reading it. It's just kind of ironic that he's unable to apply his own instructions.
- unalone 18y ago
  Is it similar to Elements of Style in its focus? (That book, of course, had the most perfect phrasing: "Omit needless words.")
  - gabrielroth 18y ago
    According to my recollection, there's less of the nuts-&-bolts-of-grammar and more about substance. E.g. Zinsser spends a lot of time arguing that you have to have a deep understanding of a subject, and be able to think well about it, to write well about it. Which ... sure, no doubt. But, um, not that helpful? (At least not to me at the time.) It's been a long time, though, and the book apparently has many fans on this board who surely know it much better than I do. But no, less technical and more discursive than Strunk & White.