Rules of good writing (2007)

https://dilbertblog.typepad.com/the_dilbert_blog/2007/06/the_day_you_bec.html

by santiviquez • 1 year ago

113 72 1 year ago

dilbertblog.typepad.com

mtlynch• 1 year ago

Readers comprehend “the boy hit the ball” quicker than “the ball was hit by the boy.” Both sentences mean the same, but it’s easier to imagine the object (the boy) before the action (the hitting). All brains work that way.

I agree with this, but I doubt that all brains work this way. It's probably true of almost all English speakers.

I think the processing effort is likely a side effect of English mainly using sentence constructions that go subject->verb->object. Not all languages do that, so I suspect that your brain has an easier time processing whatever's most common in the language.

hiAndrewQuinn• 1 year ago

Over 80% of the world's languages are classified as SVO or SOV, actually, and probably over 90% of all first language speakers today speak one of these two. Their overwhelming dominance compared to the other four possibilities have led researchers to conclude there may actually be a cognitive benefit to putting the subject first.

mackeye• 1 year ago

arabic can be VSO or SVO. i'm rather new to the langauge but tend to prefer VSO when writing, even as a native english speaker, which gets me to wonder if theres a correlation somewhere between arabic proficiency, other known languages, and VSO/SVO preference. my preference might come from the relative conciseness of VSO in arabic though; often placing the subject before the verb is a bit redundant given context. i'm sure theres a correlation to programming language typing schema somewhere there :)

burnt-resistor• 1 year ago

Interesting see I. Don't Yoda harshly judge. ;o)

LoganDark2• 1 year ago

There probably is. For me receiving the subject after anything else requires me to buffer everything else awaiting the subject in order to parse it correctly. My brain seems to naturally work in cause->effect order so it's naturally easiest for me to process the cause first and then the effect. I don't think everyone works the same way, but there is definitely an order of information flow that is most efficient for me. I also generally seem to process things somewhat like an LLM would...

bbor• 1 year ago

I had the same thought, glad you phrased it so succinctly! Surprisingly, a Holocaust-denying white nationalist is not someone you should trust on matters concerning global anthropology.

cAtte_• 1 year ago

woah

alvah• 1 year ago

Holocaust-denying

Didn't he write "no reasonable person doubts that the Holocaust happened" in the blog post you are referring to? That's an....unusual way to deny the Holocaust.

jameshart2• 1 year ago

I think the counterargument to this simplistic assertion is that "The boy was hit by a ball" seems equally legible to me to "A ball hit the boy". If you're quickly reporting the details of an accident to a doctor and it's crucial to get the information across quickly, I think many speakers would still start with "He was hit by a ball", not "A ball hit him." We're not interested in assigning agency to the ball here, we're interested in the effects on the boy. We're focusing down on the boy first, then talking about what is happening. Is he hitting a ball? Getting hit by a ball? Nobody cares what the ball's doing, it doesn't need to be prepped for surgery.

GGByron3• 1 year ago

"I think many speakers would still start with "He was hit by a ball", not "A ball hit him." We're not interested in assigning agency to the ball here, we're interested in the effects on the boy."

And you don't favor the shorter message?

degamad• 1 year ago

I think you're onto something with "agency". In particular, "a car hit him" seems much less out-of-place than "a ball hit him", but we're more used to treating cars as first-class objects with agency, as compared to how we perceive balls.

Brajeshwar2• 1 year ago

I weirdly learned this by chance. Most, if not all, Indian languages (as far as I know) are spoken/written in the passive voice. It sounds more respectful that way. Hence, the default way for us Indians is to speak English in the passive voice.

Early on, I forced myself to write and speak in the active voice. Now, I believe, it comes naturally to write or speak English the “right” way.

pansa2• 1 year ago

Both sentences mean the same

Not really. The first sentence is about a boy, the second is about a ball. The best one to use depends on context.

MangoToupe2• 1 year ago

Imagine how boring literature (or really most sorts of writing) would be if we optimized it around theories of linguistic efficiency rather than taste. I'm left entirely unconvinced.

riwsky2• 1 year ago

Anyone optimizing for some specific taste already has an implicit theory of linguistic efficiency. Most writers aren’t optimizing for anything at all, and they have no taste, and their writing is boring, and it wastes my time, and I hate it.

globnomulous• 1 year ago

I think the processing effort is likely a side effect of English mainly using sentence constructions that go subject->verb->object. Not all languages do that, so I suspect that your brain has an easier time processing whatever's most common in the language.

This isn't true at all. Passive voice is extremely common in everyday speech, and sentences constructed with linking verbs are almost certainly more common than either active or passive voice.

And that accounting of the language considers only utterances consistinf od grammatically correct, complete main clauses, which constitute by far the minority of the sentential constructions a native speaker of English will produce in a day.

If everything you said in a normal day were a complete sentence, let alone uniformly or predominantly active voice, you'd sound completely deranged and unhinged.

If whatever's most common in the language really were easiest for readers or listeners to understand, then active-voice constructions should be the most cognitively challenging. They aren't.

djoldman• 1 year ago

Simple means getting rid of extra words. Don’t write, “He was very happy” when you can write “He was happy.” You think the word “very” adds something. It doesn’t. Prune your sentences.

Yes. (Hemingway).

j_bum• 1 year ago

The Hemingway editor is great for word pruning [0].

[0] https://hemingwayapp.com/

Brajeshwar2• 1 year ago

This has been my go-to pruner since a while. The best thing I learnt is to break up long sentences into shorter ones.

mdorazio• 1 year ago

This is great advice if you want to write like Hemingway. Most of the great authors are not so sparing with their words, though. And I often find that people who excessively prune their writing end up with quite generic paragraphs that seem like they were written for elementary school children. I've personally found a better tip for writing is to not use two "cheap" words when one "expensive" one will convey your meaning more fully. To use your example, "He was very happy" doesn't convey as much feeling as, "He was ecstatic". But depending on what you want to say, "He was restlessly giddy with barely contained joy" could be even better.

riwsky2• 1 year ago

Most users of written English are not the Great Authors, though, nor are they writing literature. Hemingway is a much more appropriate model for business communication than is, say, Wallace. Though for attention-grabbing copy, you’d probably want Morrison’s or Nabokov’s dynamism. And if you’re code-golfing, nothing beats a Borges, Chiang, or Cusk.

raincole2• 1 year ago

Surely. Then you check Paul Graham, whose writing is influential in the world of startup, and find most of them are very long. Arguably unnecessarily so.

Perhaps it's a tech startup thing? After all programmers are not famous for their refined literary taste. And then you check the few LitMag that people care enough to pay for even when the content is available for free, like Clarkesworld or BCS. Then you find sentences there are generally not crispy and short.

It turns out there aren't rules. All guidelines are contextual.

treve• 1 year ago

PG is not influential because of his writing though. His name is what gets his writing circulated, so I'm not sure if it's a good couter example.

tomhow3• 1 year ago

He became well-known via his writing in the early-mid 00s; first his book about Lisp then his essays that became popular on Slashdot. His investing happened as a consequence of his writing.

raincole2• 1 year ago

The other way around.

Of course a lot of rich people got readers just because they're rich, but PG isn't the one of them.

kragen3• 1 year ago

Yes, PG is influential primarily because of his writing. He wrote On Lisp, which is still well-regarded today, before founding Viaweb. Viaweb itself did not make him well-known; there were many newly wealthy dot-com millionaires at the time, and he was just one of many, except that he wrote far more persuasive essays. At the time that I wrote https://paulgraham.com/redund.html we were discussing programming language design on a mailing list, and there was not yet any suggestion of a VC fund.

The reason he got into venture capital was that some of those essays urged ambitious young people to start startups, drawing on his own experience, and specifically to write SaaS software in Lisp, as he had. The Y Combinator fund came afterwards, and its dealflow came from the people who had been persuaded by those essays. That's why the first version of Reddit was written in Lisp.

If Y Combinator had not been successful, he would have remained well known for his essays.

Though some of his ideas were not correct, looking back, it is hard to name any other writer of persuasive essays of the past quarter century whose work has been similarly impactful, except perhaps Mencius Moldbug. Moldbug's work may turn out to be less impactful—I certainly hope it does—but it's too early to tell.

mlboss• 1 year ago

Y Combinator came after his essays; though I don’t agree with everything Paul Graham says, those essays profoundly shaped me.

tomhow3• 1 year ago

Here's pg's writing advice, published in 2005:

https://www.paulgraham.com/writing44.html

n4r9• 1 year ago

Graham writes in punchy sentences. But I often find the overall thrust uncompelling. He has a habit of waffling whilst glossing over nuance. I suspect you're right: writing for entrepeneurs is a slightly different skillset.

CharlesW• 1 year ago

The first three paragraphs are good advice for business writing. Strunk made the same point with "Omit needless words".

If you approach (or would like to approach) writing more from the perspective of a craft rather than meeting KPIs, Stephen King's On Writing is great.

coffeeisyummy• 1 year ago

You mean, "Omit words".

Or maybe I mean "Omit."

Or maybe if I didn't even post a reply, I would have added the same value to this thread.

gblargg2• 1 year ago

⠀

hownottowrite• 1 year ago

Active voice. Minimum word count. That’s it, unless you’re Paul Graham.

Spoiler: You are not Paul Graham.

irchans2• 1 year ago

I believer there is an error in

"Readers comprehend “the boy hit the ball” quicker than “the ball was hit by the boy.” Both sentences mean the same, but it’s easier to imagine the object (the boy) before the action (the hitting). All brains work that way. (Notice I didn’t say, “That is the way all brains work”?)".

It should be, "the SUBJECT (the boy) before the action (the hitting)." (I added caps for emphasis.)

phs318u• 1 year ago

"the boy hit the ball"

In this sentence, boy=subject, hit=verb, ball=object.

All brains work that way.

If language sentence structure reflects how brains think, then that's not entirely true. While most languages are SVO (subject-verb-object), not all are. Japanese is SOV (subject-object-verb), while biblical Hebrew is/was VSO (verb-subject-object). I'm sure there are other variations.

EDIT: it just occurred to me that Japanese SVO is syntactically similar to Forth/RPN.

irchans2• 1 year ago

Forth :) It's been like 30 years since I the last time I wrote a Forth program that was more than 10 lines long---fond memories.

ahartmetz• 1 year ago

Not to mention passive contructions are way overused (oops, I just used one). At least if the sentence mentions the acting subject, an active construction is shorter and less stuffy.

90s_dev• 1 year ago

[flagged]

sandspar2• 1 year ago

Huh? It's trivially easy to write a Reddit post that gets thousands of readers. A mid tier YouTube scriptwriter can reach tens of millions of readers/listeners every week. A well-written Instagram comment can receive millions of views in a matter of days.

If you're content to remain nameless then you can reach millions of readers.

JadeNB• 1 year ago

If you're content to remain nameless then you can reach millions of readers.

Why should namelessness help? None of the examples you mention seem to require it.

yesfitz• 1 year ago

There are benefits to writing well besides increasing your audience.

Paul Graham illustrates in his post, “Good Writing”.[1]

“How does that help the writer? Because the writer is the first reader.”

This is also supported by Graham’s post “Writes and Write-Nots”[2]

“To write well you have to think clearly, and thinking clearly is hard.”

I don’t take Paul Graham’s word as gospel, but I have yet to find any contradictory stance, let alone one that’s been useful to me.

1: https://paulgraham.com/goodwriting.html 2: https://www.paulgraham.com/writes.html

Labov• 1 year ago

I think this is good advice for bloggers and journalists, but not for novelists or poets.

CalChris• 1 year ago

Adams gives good advice. However, no one will remember you if you write that way.

ihiep• 1 year ago

Writing isn’t about being remembered. It’s about helping others remember the ideas themselves.

klodolph2• 1 year ago

Ah yes, the Ozymandias approach to writing.

laurent_du• 1 year ago

Well he is certainly remembered by many.

lutusp• 1 year ago

"Rules of good writing", really? The article's title ironically commits a lexical gaffe by presenting its topic as a value instead of a choice.

Whether the title draws more readers than "Rules of clear writing" is a separate topic, one dealing less with principles and more with marketing.

Strunk & White, the source for most of the article's ideas, isn't mentioned. We may bury the past, but we can't deny it.

I recently boiled my copy of Strunk & White until little remained. At the bottom of the pot was "Make every word count."

kragen3• 1 year ago

PG's essays are optimized to be persuasive, and probably this choice of title contributes to that. Your alternative title would indeed be more informative.

GGByron3• 1 year ago

"The main technique is keeping things simple."

Orwell also knew to avoid clichés, and lo, he made a much stronger argument for simplicity in his essays. "Keep it simple" means nothing by itself and Adams does not explain the concepts he hints at or even call them by their proper names.

None of the above would seem obnoxious had he actually cited Orwell.

kens• 1 year ago

Most writing articles (including this one) are rehashes of Strunk & White. One exception is "Style: Toward Clarity and Grace", which provides a new, higher-level way of understanding writing and how to make it better. I highly recommend that book if you're looking for something more advanced than the standard advice.

klodolph2• 1 year ago

Agreed, and rehashing Strunk & White sucks because Strunk & White wasn’t a great guide in the first place. Strunk & White boiled down the advice to aphorisms and you have to kind of understand what good writing is before you read it. The aphorisms don’t make sense if you don’t already understand them.

Meanwhile, Style: Lessons in Clarity and Grace gives concrete advice, examples, and exercises.

jbreckmckye2• 1 year ago

+1 for Style: TCAG

It's one of the few books that approaches the topic in a systematic, structured way. Not a rehash of platitudes like "try and be concise".

I know I need to "omit needless words". What I don't know is which words are "needless". Style answers that with linguistics and cognitive psychology.

jbreckmckye2• 1 year ago

But clarity and brevity, though a good beginning, are only a beginning. By themselves, they remain bare and bleak.

When Calvin Coolidge, asked by his wife what the preacher had preached on, replied, “Sin,” and, asked what the preacher had said, replied, “He was against it,” he was brief enough. But one hardly envies Mrs. Coolidge.

m0llusk• 1 year ago

Which explains the rise of rap music?

wduquette• 1 year ago

That moment when you want to respond to an 18-year-old comment because the commenter was Wrong On The Internet, except that trying to correct it is even more absurdly futile than usual.

Warh00l• 1 year ago

pierceday.metalabel.com/aphone

Rules of good writing (2007)

Related Stories