Hacker News Reader

That reminds me of an idea by Ira Glass (This American Life): when you start learning something (i. e. writing), what improves most is taste. Actual competence takes longer to develop.

The result is a (possibly ten-year long) period where you can clearly recognize that your work sucks but you don't have the ability (yet) to not suck.

That's uncommonly insightful. Thanks for sharing.

Too much in a hurry now, but you should find the original. It's a beautiful short essay if I remember correctly. Or maybe he did it as a song or a play – I only remember it was good.

I found this quote from an interview: http://writerunderground.com/2011/04/28/ira-glass-on-creativ...

This is where I first saw it, it's a nice form for sharing with other people: http://zenpencils.com/comic/90-ira-glass-advice-for-beginner...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BI23U7U2aUY

I can write Perl code in Clojure before I know how not to write Perl code in Clojure.

Actually that saying goes back at least to old FORTRAN programmers from the 60s vs C programmers in the 70s and their ability to write recognizable FORTRAN in C (whaddya mean that in C a variable named i isn't implicitly defined as an int by its very name? and so on).

Thats the pessimistic view. The optimistic view is writing A in B gives you a chance to learn B by replacing small parts of emulated A with bare metal B. Good luck when you scale up and the major architecture of the problem is different when written in A vs B, that won't be as simple as swapping out things.

One of my favorite quotes / ideas that always hits close to home. He continues this thought with the observation that most people in those situations never get past this point...and give up, while only a few keep pushing despite their perceived mediocrity, which is a key part of this thought in my opinion.

Here's the full quote: “Nobody tells this to people who are beginners, I wish someone told me. All of us who do creative work, we get into it because we have good taste. But there is this gap. For the first couple years you make stuff, it’s just not that good. It’s trying to be good, it has potential, but it’s not. But your taste, the thing that got you into the game, is still killer. And your taste is why your work disappoints you. A lot of people never get past this phase, they quit. Most people I know who do interesting, creative work went through years of this. We know our work doesn’t have this special thing that we want it to have. We all go through this. And if you are just starting out or you are still in this phase, you gotta know its normal and the most important thing you can do is do a lot of work. Put yourself on a deadline so that every week you will finish one story. It is only by going through a volume of work that you will close that gap, and your work will be as good as your ambitions. And I took longer to figure out how to do this than anyone I’ve ever met. It’s gonna take awhile. It’s normal to take awhile. You’ve just gotta fight your way through.”

Thank you for finding that.

It's funny how strongly I heard Glass' voice in my head as I read that. He seems like an interesting guy.

Check out the video of him discussing this and you'll actually hear his voice: https://vimeo.com/24715531 :-)

Here's the entire note from Ira Glass on that topic, in a video with him: https://vimeo.com/24715531

> Fast forward few more days or weeks, you're unexcited, you think this is hopelessly daft, you think no will care about it, and slowly de-motivation creeps in.

Maybe the idea was not so good after all. That is not a bad thing. Keep on rocking.

This guy puts it nicely I think: - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0sHCQWjTrJ8 ( explicit ) - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rDHb3vC9OmE ( PG rated )

"Most ideas kinda of suck when you do them."

That is perfectly fine, move on to the next.

One thing that helps is focusing on how this improves your life.

Even if all your writing does is clarify things in your head, that's progress. You are better because of it. Don't bother iterating and polishing the writing if you don't feel like it. Move to another post or write on the same subject again with a clear head.

Also, do not underestimate the quality of your work. It is often good enough for people who are not at your level.

There is so much work out there I now think is mediocre but used to believe was amazing/awesome/life-changing.

Making personal progress is more important than doing nothing and stagnating.

Good luck with your work ;-)

Yeah, the great irony of progress is that your old stuff always looks bad to your (later) self. It's all relative.

I know this well and the key is yo design a process that provides a sense of completion as well as feedback.

For example, instead of writing one long post per month, you write one small one each week.

The long monthly post is more difficult to pull off because the payoff is so far off, and requires so much more. It isn't the writing that is difficult, but persisting in writing.

If you divide work in smaller, more frequent units you can get more stuff done over time. Also, you can go back and combine these small units as building blogs for something bigger.

I actually believe that this iterative approach is how everything is created.

> For example, instead of writing one long post per month, you write one small one each week.

> The long monthly post is more difficult to pull off because the payoff is so far off, and requires so much more. It isn't the writing that is difficult, but persisting in writing.

That's interesting, because in this case, I would actually recommend the opposite: instead of trying to put out an article a week, write an article a month. He said:

> the writing style is in-consistent and poor, the points are not strong, research is shallow — most of which come when I see how others write and inevitably start comparing them with mine. I did end up finishing the post but I just don't value what I did.

Quality research and writing takes time. With experience comes skill, and that can reduce the time it takes, but if you're not there yet, going faster won't make the product better. And if you're discouraged because of lack of quality, putting out equal or worse quality won't help motivation.

Instead, slow down. Pick a topic you're really interested in, that you think will help others in a significant way, and spend a whole month on it. Work on it for 30-60 minutes a day; if you average 45 minutes a day for a month, that's around 20 hours. You can research and write something worth reading in 20 hours, and you can give yourself enough time to do it well, with proofreading and even gathering feedback.

In other words, take the time to do work you can be proud of. If your only deadline is self-imposed, why rush? There is a never-ending supply of fluff on the Internet, and adding your own fluff won't make any difference in the end. As an amateur writer--one who does it for the love of writing--take the time to do it right; it's a luxury many writers would envy.

This feels like a better answer.

I'm increasingly of the opinion that any piece taking on a rich, challenging topic needs to be a few thousand words at least. Anything less means that important rebuttals go unaddressed and evidence gets cherry-picked. If you can fit your prescription for Syria into a 500 word column, you can't possibly have included enough information to lead your readers to an informed conclusion. At best you've offered an idea without claiming to prove it, at worst you've tossed off a handful of facts and pretended to rigor.

If you want good small, frequent posts, you'd better keep your scope similarly small. Tell me about a campaign speech and its significance, but don't diagnose the entire election. Or pick a settled technical topic and just be didactic, but be prepared to research every sentence.

It's fun to write bold, strident essays on a topic, but it doesn't do very much. The value-added part is the fact-finding and fact-checking slog, and I think a lot of people (myself included) underestimate just how much more time goes into researching a good essay than actually writing it. Just as you said, a good work on a big topic takes tens of hours, even to address one aspect.

For me, this means that I abandon a lot of work - I care enough to write about it (fun), but not enough to firmly ground that writing (exhausting). So I try to either escape the problem with speculative writing, or judge my interest early on and decide whether to follow through before wasting time.

So when I hear someone say that the analysis in their writing is weak, and their research is shallow, I'm hopeful! It means that they're writing with enough self-awareness to actually seek the truth.

"you think this is hopelessly daft, you think no will care about it, and slowly de-motivation creeps in."

When you get here, start talking to other people about it. Run it by your pals, your internet friends, whoever, see if they think it's good. If they like it and give you positive feedback (hey I'd use that library! I'd play that game) then it's both encouragement and a sign that you'll have at least something of a receptive audience for it when you're done.

Well, that works for me at least.