Writing: A misunderstood activity
solimanwrites.com
solimanwrites.com
I'm totally aligned with the author on the value of writing as a tool for thinking, learning, and exploring and I agree that there are blockers for some folks that make them less likely to stretch their writing muscles, especially in professional settings where the default is often "let's jump on a quick call".
Sadly, the article is poorly written. I don't expect professional-level editing on a personal blog, but I would hope for a higher standard when the piece is written by someone who is building and (presumably) charging money for a course on writing.
We're a digital agency based in NYC, looking to hire a Sr. level engineer either on-site or remote within the US. Over the past few years we've really gotten serious about technical writing, especially around requirements gathering/documentation. We now strive to treat documentation as just as important as code—meaning a feature's requirements get written and code-reviewed via merge request _before_ implementation work begins.
So, if you're looking for a place that asynchronous discussion and written communication, you'd fit right in.
Everyone has different learning styles, some conversations are definitely better in real-time and in-person but the default behavior being refusing to read an email longer than 3 sentences is rough.
I guess sometimes people who [rightly or wrongly] think a strategic decision isn't worth 30 minutes of their time find it easier to suggest the other person is the one who's not putting the effort into it...
My experience has been heavy on people who skip reading in favor of a meeting even when the reading is to provide historical context, summarize learnings, and present what we know about a situation. Not reading turns what should have been a productive, forward looking discussion into a meeting rehashing old information for the folks who didn't do their homework.
In my professional life, I've encountered far more people who prefer to have meetings that could have been emails than I have people who think a strategic decision isn't worth 30 minutes of time for a discussion but perhaps my use of "default behavior" was a bit strong.
I suspect the meeting-heavy cultures and aversion to reading I've encountered are largely driven by discomfort with writing, not reading which is where articles like this one could add some value.
I mean, "refuse to read more than 3 sentences" (or "the TLDR of the business world" and "I-didn't-bother-reading-your-email-so-please-spend-an-extra-30m-explaining-it session is less so" in others' comments in the same subthread) seems like unrealistic as well as incredibly uncharitable assumptions to make about people's general motivations for requesting followup calls. Especially if the subject matter of the original email was something as non-trivial as "a clear set of strategic choices"
Indeed, if it ends up actually taking 30 minutes to explain an email, it's obvious both that the other person is putting far more time and effort into the call than they would have done into scanning the email text, and that the email itself couldn't possibly have communicated all the information the caller [felt that they] needed to know in sufficient detail.
Which doesn't guarantee that the "quick call" was actually a productive use of time, or that the caller's questions are particularly good ones or that the caller couldn't have included followup questions in their reply, but if somebody can't think of any reason why colleagues receiving their email would call for clarification other than lack of interest in reading, there's a decent chance it's not [just] the colleagues with the communication problems. Even if the colleagues don't have additional information to add and seem fixated on something which point 11b was supposed to rule out.
Sure, as the number of people in a group meeting grows the probability someone hasn't read (or has read and has completely forgotten) the meeting prep notes approaches 1, but that's a separate issue from people receiving an email and calling for one-to-one clarification.
I'm not complaining about people asking questions to clarify or build on their understanding of the email. (Or even a lack of understanding; it's hard to build enough shared context to communicate well.)
You're the one here uncharitably projecting the assumption that we're punishing people for asking reasonable questions about something they made an effort to read.
But hey, maybe the brief text summary you wrote didn't encapsulate every nuance of your thoughts on the issue and any particularly bad habits specific colleagues of yours may have. I guess you don't want a call to clarify it ;-)
> The most-deflating response ... is the immediate TL;DR of the business world ...
So, here we are, having a text-call to clarify your comprehension of something you actually read (if uncharitably). Because I can tell you bothered to read it (and it bothered you enough to comment).
If I could tell you hadn't bothered to read it--then yes, I wouldn't want to clarify it.
Ultimately most people who don't want to take the time to read someone's email properly don't reply to schedule a followup action that will take even more time, they hit mark as read and move on. People who genuinely value others opinions (or want to be seen to) are going to want a followup call anyway, so they might as well pre-arrange it before they've had chance to sit down and read every paragraph and check out your links. Especially if they're also in the habit of insta-replies to avoid "about the email sent 30 minutes ago..." chasers from other people. Sure, it's not impossible their reaction to receiving an email from you is completely irrational dislike of reading well-structured and clear prose, but then they're the one soliciting more explanation rather than being deflated about followup.
I am glad you know that I don't really have people schedule meetings right after getting an email in which I (and others) have to explain the content of said email before we can do anything productive.
Now that I know everyone who schedules a meeting to have someone explain an email to them actually read and understood the email it makes total sense that they ask questions that betray a complete lack of knowledge of anything beyond the general topic.
I would expect someone who read the email to be able to form a question that builds on or slices into some concern the email addressed, but now I know that feigning ignorance is just their way of showing how much they appreciate my time and opinions.
My life is materially improved. Thanks!
None of this was about intent. You projected that in. I can tell when someone didn't read the email. It isn't about people who are scheduling the decision session before reading the email but ultimately do it. It isn't about people who read the email but have questions. It's about people who didn't read the email.
But you won't accept that I regularly have and correctly understand the experience. You're determined to take an internet stranger's personal anecdotal experience and read it as something that must be false if it isn't globally true.
Later on, I started working with an editor and sure enough, the editor had to suffer through unreadable drafts but the end reader had no idea how incompetent I was. They could be excused for thinking I have a bit of talent when in reality, I just found someone with enough patience to massage my crap.
So I would add in a number four. Yes, it’s important to write. But having a good editor who can see through all the crap you’ve internalized and who can help you deliver the right words?? That’s just about priceless…
But, one can learn to be their own editor. It's not easy, it's unnatural, and it's not as good as an external editor, but it's better than nothing. The trick is to change the point of view, walk in the shoes of the reader.
Somehow I also often find it easier to see possible improvements after I published something. I often edit when possible after posting. It is annoying, but it does have the some effect. Or if I write markdown, render it in some nice formatted view - that also helps to distance a bit.
That magazine eventually failed but I was hooked. I started paying her to help me and when her life got too busy, I started paying other editors.
Once I worked with one, I knew exactly what I was looking for so it’s been easy finding editors since. Without that experience, it would have been a lot of trial and error. For example, I can write very quickly. Because of this, I write far better when I work with an editor who really tears my work apart. If an editor sugar coats too much, draft+1 often ends up worse. But if they’re direct and try to hurt my feelings, draft+1 will be closer.
This models a good amount of reflection and humility. It's hard to take a rough critique. At least when it comes to code, there's an ultimate ~deterministic oracle (and style concerns can be respected or dismissed).
I vaguely thought I had a good bi-directional editor<->poet friendship during undergrad, but it fell apart over some personal issues. We've reconnected, but I ~lost my muse in the meantime.
I've also wondered a little if it'd be worth trying to form something on the spectrum from a little editor dyad to a tetrad for technical blogging.
I’m only good enough so your mileage will vary if you’re friends with extremely competent editors. But if you work with a friend and your writing doesn’t improve, you may be working with too good of a friend.
* Nobody (and I mean nobody) is asking me to write comments,
* I'm not documenting anything (perhaps my opinion on something), and
* I am vastly under-qualified to write about the topics I "write" about.
Does tweeting count? Does commenting on Reddit/Facebook/LinkedIn/MySpace/etc. count?
If so, I think maybe it's time we give those platforms (and indeed this one) more respect; they're places that encourage people who wouldn't ever write for its own sake a way to express themselves through the written word.
You can do this on social platforms. But you can also just poot out some brainfarts and scoot out of the room before anyone notices.
I value writing for similar reasons offered by the article, and I am very much invested in note taking methodology.
I never thought of commenting as a way of note-taking. However, it makes a lot of sense to use one’s comment history as a way of looking back. It’s actually very contextualized.
I was never someone to comment much, because I thought there was no value for other people in what I have to say. Alas, looking at it as a note-taking endeavor should definitely have insightful returns.
I think this as well: if my thoughts are already well represented in other comments, or in popular/common thought in general, what's the point of repeating it? And if it's not popular/common, it's a lot of effort to articulate in a way that has a good chance of not being dismissed, and could even be inflammatory.
And still, there's 1) an interesting parallel with art/creation, and 2) something missing in the web toolkit for people.
1) when you (want to) create something (whatever the discipline), it seems that everyone faces this dread that what they are doing is either not popular, or just too common and used, so what's the point in creating/doing it?
When it might still be essential to do it first for oneself, because the prize is in the practice itself, not the by-product that is the result. Writing is thinking, so are
2) the idea of comments trail as a thought archive is good! I wish there was an integrated way (as integrated as "View Source") in browsers not only to comment (so publicly write something) about web documents or elements, but to annotate them - for private use first, with the option of making them public on a personal site (yes, there's https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Web_annotation but...)
It all participates in refining the connections around the thing you're writing about, for you, and for others.
It seems that half the purpose of this is to convince the reader that the author is a great writer, speaking from a position of authority, followed by rather generic advice they generously take time from their busy day to offer: write more so you, too, can get better at writing.
Or perhaps it was all tongue-in-cheek, and I just didn't pick it up.
> Every time I looked closely at their text I could peer into their minds, and inside lay a thought process oblivious to what writing really means.
This is the literal exact basis of what we all tend to see with folk online when it comes to projecting their own thoughts and assumptions onto the text of others...
> Let’s change that. I used to misunderstand writing too, and my style suffered severely as a result. Now not only is it miles better, but I’m also a smarter human thanks to realizing the true meaning of writing. To get there, I had to spot the misconceptions I’ve been fed about writing. Reading this piece, I’m sure you’ll at least identify a couple you can build on to change your writing mindset.
Yeah... like not assuming you know everything going on in a persons head just because you read some words they wrote as a rough copy of their work...
Jeezus...
Anyways. He's right about people having that misconception about writing being easy... but I can't be bothered to read anything further due to the blowhard nature of his words he chose.
There's some irony in this first paragraph being not-so-well written, right?
> first, it looks easy because it uses the same symbols of speech
Same symbols as... speaking? as other writing? There's a comparison made here that isn't completed.
> second, everyone who was taught the alphabet and basic sentence structures can produce something similar to writing when it’s not.
Same problem; "when some writing is not actually similar to other writing" I assume was the intent, but this is a stilted way of making that point. A better (though longer) way of saying this might be, "Anyone taught the alphabet and English sentence structure can produce 'writing', but what those people produce bears little resemblance to what 'good' writing actually looks like."
I don't really want to go through and pick this whole article apart, I just thought it was interesting the author "chose" to start their article on "good writing is hard" by writing a poor opening paragraph!
What we don't know is where the author started from: On a subjective scale, they may be a significantly better writer than when they started.
Neither of those things actually good responses to the article, though: Good writing is hard, and the article demonstrates that well.
Yeah, something seemed a little “off” about the writing style, in an unusual way. This is “real writing,” I take it?
Certainly, most "documentation" I read is just a thoughtless dunp of arbitrary facts about some system, design, code, or event or what have you. But it should be better.
There are infinitely many true statements to make about some thing in order to document it. The art is in determining which ideas and facts about it are relevant for an audience, and finding a way to express those ideas and/or facts clearly for.that audience, in a logical order, using good prose, diagrams, etc. I think that's as hard as any other writing task, and arguably more valuable than many. Documentation captures facts for record and makes them accessible to some audience who otherwise would not have known about that thing. What could be a more important kind of knowledge work than that?
What breathtaking arrogance. It falls into even sharper contrast in light of how this article is written with at best dry competence. Perhaps I'm too harsh, but coincidentally I today had the experience of being utterly sucked into some writing on a subject about which I cared nothing by the sheer talent of the writer after I stumbled across "Stranger in the Village" by James Baldwin.
Human speech itself is amazing, with no other animal having anything close to it.
And then we have writing, where we can encode this speech where people distant from you in time and space and read and understand it.
And here is the kicker: it is a pretty universal human ability now!
In the past, maybe 1% or fewer of a population could write. Now, we have almost universal literacy throughout the developed world, and a global literacy rate above 85%.
I find all this amazing.
The author doesn't consider the other way people explore ideas: talking and engaging in discussions. The 'text producer' is this other kind of explorer of ideas. Yes it pays to organise your mind, but the exploration itself is important too.
There seems to be a whole bunch of popular courses and content around how you HAVE to write or you need to write to think.
Most of these articles seem to boil down to "writing gives you clarity of thought".
Why must it be only writing and not drawing or just going out and thinking?
I think this is how you invoke the Stay-Puft Marshmallow Man.
I've been looking for this for a long time, the exquisite, electric pleasure of bathing in a flood of potentials...