Hacker News Reader

Hacker News

Comment by jmmcd | Hacker News Reader

Full thread

jmmcd

I love this.

Inevitably I want to make some improvements.

> “He laughed with the kind of booming abandon that made the whole restaurant turn around and look.”

The kind of? If it's a kind that exists generically then we can't have a past tense, so:

“He laughed with the kind of booming abandon that *makes* the whole restaurant turn around and look.”

But really, why emphasise it being generic? This is better:

“He laughed with *a* booming abandon that made the whole restaurant turn around and look.”

---

> Use lists where relevant, because it’s easier to read a bulleted list of items than to read a paragraph with the same information.

Use lists only where all the items have the same status, in some sense. An ordinary paragraph can't be broken up into bullet points.

View on HN

It feels like your change is changing the scene? The author's sentence makes it seem like the laughter was not in the restaurant, while yours makes it seem like it's taking place in the restaurant. Maybe I am overthinking it!

>The kind of? If it's a kind that exists generically then we can't have a past tense

It still applies if the past tense is only meant to apply to the reaction to what he did at that point in the past ("made the whole restaurant turn around and look") and not to the general reaction to such booming abandon.

Then this:

> “He laughed with the kind of booming abandon that made the whole restaurant turn around and look.”

Can still refer to the generalized abandon, but should rather be:

> “He laughed with a kind of booming abandon that made the whole restaurant turn around and look.”

Though, the non-generalized version is indeed better.

Maybe he often visited that restaurant and laughed with booming abandon and no longer does :) there was, over a specific period, a specific kind of booming abandon, justifying "the" - but there no longer is, justifying "made".

If it's a kind that existed generally, then we can have a past tense.

"He laughed with the kind of booming abandon that made the whole restaurant turn around and look, in the before-times."

We now live in a sad, post-apocalyptic world, with no booming, no abandon, no turning around, and very few people in restaurants.

This is hardly a bad description of the current state of affairs.

We can describe "a kind that exists generally" even if the restaurant turned and looked (then) and would still turn (now and in the future).

Just need to change "the" with "a":

> He laughed with the kind of booming abandon that made the whole restaurant turn around and look.

to:

> He laughed with a kind of booming abandon that made the whole restaurant turn around and look.

In this case his laugh is still described as having a generalized "booming abandon", but the reaction of the patrons isn't a necessary reaction to that "kind of" laughter, but to that particular instance of it.

That is, the noun is "the kind of booming abandon" and not "the kind of booming abandon that made the whole restaurant turn around and look".

This is the best version.

> “He laughed with a booming abandon that made the whole restaurant turn around and look.”

Don't the people in the restaurant actually turn around in this sentence, whereas they didn't in the original, because it's just describing a kind of loudness with an example?

> “He laughed with the kind of booming abandon that makes the whole restaurant turn around and look.”

> Don't the people in the restaurant actually turn around in this sentence, whereas they didn't in the original

No, the original said "made", so I think they actually turned around.

Well, yes, but one is telling and one is showing. A good story teller shows and not tells.

That's just a literary superstition, similar to absolutes we tell kids such as "you should never lie" (that in real life are never that clear cut).

A good story teller can both show and tell, depending on whatever fits the story, their stylistic choice, and their intention.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com