Hacker News Reader

Comment by hnhg | Hacker News Reader

I'll say it again, it's a piece of writing that wouldn't warrant any attention if it weren't for the author's status here.

I'm halfway through and my brain is stunned by the effort of forcing it down.

PG needs a break from writing for a while. I enjoyed his early stuff and I hope he gets a return to form.

[edit: it's like he's the George Lucas of writing useful articles for hackers: the early ones were classics but he somehow lost the magic for his follow-up series]

View on HN

>> I'll say it again, it's a piece of writing that wouldn't warrant any attention if it weren't for the author's status here.

This is probably true. If I was the person to write this, and post this on my personal blog, and submitted it to HN, nobody would give a fuck.

Of course, that may not indicate anything, because that could be said for Newton's Principia, Einstein's Relativity, The Great Gatsby, Proof of Fermat's last theorom...

I think the question isn't "Would the world appreciate this if it weren't by PG?" but "SHOULD the world appreciate this, even if it weren't PG?"

Glad I'm not the only one. First few paragraphs lead to a good buildup but going on it fell apart.

Further, It's hard to criticise Graham on HN.

Is it difficult? Most of his articles receive quite a lot of criticism on hn.

He used to have interesting things to write about - subjects that he'd thought deeply about, had discussed with his peers, and could distill into valuable prose.

I think you're right. He's just churning out banal advice on a broad range of topics in which he has limited expertise, in the form of long-winded blog posts. It's so different from his early stuff, it's almost like he's hired a ghost writer to merely give the appearance he's still writing.

Strong disagree there. Sure, quality varies. I thought "The Two Kinds of Moderate", which is very recent, was excellent.

This is incredibly lazy criticism. You add no analysis, reasoning or anything of value.

Recursive sarcasm?

At this risk of being accused of snark, tu quoque. If you don’t understand the basis of the OP’s opinion, you’re welcome to ask. There’s no need to assume bad faith.

> At this risk of being accused of snark, tu quoque.

How so? I feel I was being quite concise.

> There’s no need to assume bad faith

I did not assume anything. There simply was nothing to work with.

> I feel I was being quite concise.

And so does the OP, I'd wager. Personally I found the basis of the OP's criticism sufficiently self-evident to not require dissertation. If you didn't, that's fine too—but it's lazy criticism to declare that because YOU formed a different opinion that the OP was being lazy.

Would you be kind enough to share any links to your own writing and some of the key factors that improved it.

I wish to improve my communication and appreciate that Paul Graham thought hard then freely shared his insights on such a difficult topic for a great deal of people.

I've always wondered how and why Geoff Bezos ran Amazon with six page essays and now I think I'm a bit closer to understanding.

Do you also ask cinema critics to show their own movies, food critics to provide their own food, etc.? One does not necessarily need to be able to _make_ something to be able to _tell_ whether something is good or not.

Not even cinema critic, cinema viewer.

"yeah I don't really like the Marvel movies, I think they're overrated"

"oh? Can you show me your movie so I can see what a good movie looks like?"

What a complete and utterly garbage thing to say on that guys part.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com