Ah the old nerd trick of disregarding the context of a statement and applying it to a context where it clearly doesn't work.
Do you really think Paul Graham is arguing against James Joyce style writing? Why would you think that?
Do you really think Paul Graham is arguing against James Joyce style writing? Why would you think that?
Are you sure? From the blog (first sentence):
> I try to write using ordinary words and simple sentences.
Since the "I" in this case refers to someone who does not write poetry, speculative fiction, drama, tragedies, comedies ... and only ever writes for a technical audience, the context is clear: technical[1] audience not seeking poetry, fiction, drama, etc...
Further one he says:
> So you can't assume that writing about a difficult topic means you can safely use difficult words.
Once again, that indicates to me he is talking about writing something technical[2], not prose or poetry.
[1][2] "Technical" is not limited to IT and engineering; it's about anything that involves technique. Describing dance moves is "technical", as is writing a recipe (which is very similar in technique to writing a tiny program) or anything involving writing down music (Should you use 7/4 for the first verse, or alternate between 3/4 and 4/4? Which will be clearer to the flautist?)
> That kind of writing is easier to read, and the easier something is to read, the more deeply readers will engage with it.
That is a general claim. I agree that it is often good advice, but there are caveats which Graham does not provide.
I'm also fairly certain that the type of writing he's talking about is mostly non-fiction prose, such as the essays he writes himself (even though he doesn't state that explicitly). Would you consider those "technical" writing?
A very odd term to use.
I'd open simply with "Think of your audience, think of your goal" and on thinking of audience expand to "Think of your audience, of which there may be some you've not thought of, or it might just be yourself, and think of your goal, if any."
Again, why the fuck would you assume Paul Graham is talking about James Joyce?
Please drop swipes like that from your arguments here, and generally please don't escalate hostility even when someone is wrong or you feel they are. Your comment would be fine without that last sentence.
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
Edit: as for "Try to not be autistic for a second" - we ban accounts that do that. Please review the guidelines and take the intended spirit of the site more to heart, so we won't have to ban you.
I do not believe that the article's prescription is confined to business writing.
> Paul Graham is a leader in the startup scene
That is true. But Graham is also a self-described essayist. He was writing long before he started Y Combinator, and his essays often discuss writing as a thing unto itself. For example, his "Nerds" essay mentions that one of his goals for life in high school was to write well^2.
Given that Graham is deeply interested in writing, and that the article doesn't explicitly confine itself to business writing, I think it's quite a stretch to assume that this essay is only talking about business writing.
> Again, why the fuck would you assume Paul Graham is talking about James Joyce?
This is a strawman (and also unnecessarily combative).
--
[^1]: Well, see my top-level comment. But that's not really relevant to this comment.
[^2]: "There was something else I wanted more: to be smart. Not simply to do well in school, though that counted for something, but to design beautiful rockets, or to write well, or to understand how to program computers. In general, to make great things." http://www.paulgraham.com/nerds.html
It seems more like Paul Graham might be talking about the kind of writing he does himself. Like essays. However, even in such a case, his point is debatable. Which is what people are doing here — debating.
No one is assuming he's "talking about James Joyce." You must be confused. He's talking about a certain type of writing style and making contestable generalizations about it. People are illustrating the contestable points with examples.
Sure, fiction can be trying to communicate things, and sometimes even ideas, but to me it's pretty obvious that the essay isn't trying to give advice for fiction writing in general.
The essay makes a generic statement about the superiority of a particular, although loosely defined, writing style.
People debate the edge cases of that statement, showing its limits, and pointing to counter examples.
The result is that the content of the essay is reduced to a very banal statement of the type: "All other things being equal, prefer writing something simple rather than not simple." As an aesthetic preference, it's all well and good. As a persuasive argument, rather lacking. It "tries to prove too much."
But let me give you a bit more context:
As a Frenchman, when I think "Essay", my mind almost automatically reaches for two authors: Montaigne and Pascal (e.g. in his Pensées).
"Simple" is probably the last qualifier I would use to describe their works. They're not simple. They're complex, rich, beautiful, copiously quoting from classical authors and yet often crystal clear. They have the same quality poetry has where replacing a word by another damages the precision of the message and images conveyed.
That is also true of non-fiction prose in longer form. I shudder to think what could become of Tocqueville's writing style, a peculiar mix of classical and romantic, if it were translated into "simple" language.
It’s possible he simply said nothing.
Kind of incredible.