- Shorter sentences
In general, you should aim to write sentences with 8-13 words each.
- Shorter words
You may think of this as "dumbing-down" your writing, but you don't get bonus points for saying utilizing instead of using.
- One idea per sentence
In other words, don't write non sequiturs.
- One concept per paragraph
Personally, I'd strongly insist that the whole point of blogs was to do whatever the fuck you want.
Because that was the point when they emerged: they democratized publishing the way the internet democratized the share and spread of information on a worldwide scale.
For better *AND* (you better believe) worse.
Now, if you're concerned about reach, engagement, monetization, etc., well that's a related but absolutely distinct discussion.
For me, I write a blog because I want to communicate what I'm thinking to other people. If I didn't, I'd just write a journal and keep it next to my bed. Therefore the effectiveness (and affectiveness) of that communication is important to me. In my experience, doing that well means being concise, having a clear structure, and a lot of the other pieces of advice in this post.
Recommending certain guidelines or approaches is certainly fine. Self-reflection and self-improvement is usually an admirable goal but not at the cost of just doing the damn thing.
And, frankly, invoking seasoned professional authors is just silly when the topic is amateur blogging.
And let's not pretend unwarranted criticism—or even just unnecessary expectations—so often just ends up being unhelpful and literally counterproductive or, much worse, a form of gatekeeping.
It's all communication. Obviously there is nothing wrong with someone blogging haphazardly, just as there is nothing wrong with writing a web app in Brainfuck.
I agree with you that unwarranted criticism is unhelpful, and I agree that in blogging, we shouldn't hold others to higher standards than they wish to be held. If you've found a form of writing that brings you joy, then carry on and enjoy it.
But at least for myself, I want to keep on improving in my writing. That's why I (aspirationally) try and learn from great writers like Orwell and Twain, and why I find advice like this useful. I know I'm never going to do this professionally, and I'm quite happy to enjoy writing as a thing for me and me alone, but part of that enjoyment will always be pushing myself to write better.
A concern I have would be that someone is too eagerly trying to employ a formula that they perceive—or have been told—exists and never develop their own style. Never experimenting or trying new things. Then conclude that they aren't not a good writer and have failed, when they simply never found their own voice, which then sparked something in them and others.
Some of the most notable bloggers I can think of that I have repeatedly come back and read time and again—even ones whose writing style I don't particularly care for but whose views I find compelling and a unique contribution to a given topic of conversation—each of them notably has a very particular, distinctive, and typically consistent voice that they blog in.
[1]https://thereader.mitpress.mit.edu/umberto-eco-how-to-write-...
The cynical hypothesis is that people don't want to think about what you wrote, and if you put enough pretty pictures and big fonts that even people who didn't pay much attention will have a good time.
I'd be curious if perhaps a seminal blog post (e.g. one of PG's) could be rewritten in this style without sounding reductive and oversimplified.
For sale: Baby shoes, never worn.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/For_sale:_baby_shoes,_never_wo...
> In other words, don't write non sequiturs.
That doesn't follow. A non sequitur isn't "two or more ideas per sentence".
Can you please summarize this? We ain't got all day to read this 21-word-long textwall.
You learn a wide vocabulary so you know how many words of the right kind to say.
Or in other words: A dumb man knows nothing, a smart man knows everything, a wise man knows he knows nothing.
So yes, your advice is great if you want to sell a blog. It's terrible if you actually want to write.
Also, “simplistic messaging for the simpleton masses” is a terrible way to look at the current situation if you ask me.
Which is why my blog is a "writing exercise," as you put it. I believe people can be more engaged with their media, but it is admittedly easier to go for the slogan-style messaging nobody has to think too hard about. I dream of a world where everyone has valuable, well-considered input and I will continue to write as though I live in that world until we get there.
Asking someone who wants to practice the art of writing to do otherwise is no different than asking a painter to just make stick figures.
And if you write primarily for the sake of writing, I don't think anyone is telling _you_ to change your approach in a way that doesn't fit _your_ goals. The advice are for others.
You wrote
> So yes, your advice is great if you want to sell a blog. It's terrible if you actually want to write.
The advice has nothing to do with selling a blog—whatever that means—and more to do with communication. Writing, especially on the web, is more often than not a communication tool and not an exercise in rhetoric.
And the point of communication is to, well, communicate. Using complex language doesn't take you closer to that goal. If you write 4000 words when 200 can be used to convey the same message and the result is that fewer people end up reading what you wrote then your communication is not effective.
Now, if what you want is to write as an artistic expression then by all means write 4000 words or even 40000. That's totally fine and nobody is stopping you from doing that obviously.
Complex language should not be used for its own sake, but it is often the most succinct and clearest way to express your points.
Communicating half of an idea to 1000 people can be worth less than exactly communicating an idea to 2 people.
I agree that not every piece of writing has the same intended audience, but I take umbrage at the use of the term "singleton masses".
My own writing could use more work, but I suppose that is the point of practicing it as an art.
I remember I was struck reading a graduate level physics textbook co-authored by Feynman when I was a student. I was amazed how much clearer the language was than almost anything else I'd read at that level. It wasn't that it only used simple words, but it only used enough of them to be precise where precision was needed, and it took the time to introduce concepts even though they were expected to be known to the reader already, just as a refresher as to exactly what the discussion was about.
The clarity comes from the fact while we typically share opinions about what common and simple terms mean, we may have slightly different ideas associated with more complex words, especially with regards to intangible subjects. Plato's treatment of the concept of Justice is a good example of this. We all think we know what the word means, but to actually pin the meaning down is quite a task.
But honestly, Plato was dumbing it down, Feynman was dumbing it down, you should dumb it down too. A fundamental truth of communication is that you know the idea in your head better than your audience. You can't treat them as peers that understand what you are trying to say until you've clearly said it.
The problem in any communication is to get your idea across as vividly as possible.
So, sure, there is a time where simpler language is an exercise in how well you know a thing. Being able to break it down into simpler terms makes sense. But we do have to be careful with the language. It's dynamic, as you mention, often subject to interpretation that could lead to misunderstanding or improper handling of an idea. I did it in my initial reply.
That said, one must know one's audience and subject, I think. Am I conveying a concept from physics to non-technical individuals who might not care what I have to say in the first place? Sure, simplify. Am I telling a story about a personal experience or some relatable problem in my field? Expect a detailed and nuanced picture to be painted.
Thanks for the comment, it gave me something to think about.
Random example: https://www.ironteethserial.com/dark-fantasy-story/story-int...
Are you morose? Perhaps you are sad, very sad in fact, but find that you are neither glum nor morose, not disheartened nor heartbroken, not anguished nor stricken, not unsure of how you will go on nor distressed, and neither grieved nor aggrieved nor yet maddened with grief. Perhaps your feelings of sadness are to be expressed quietly and without intruding.
If you just slap them down anywhere then you end up with a sentence like "Obscurantist verbiage is a calling card of the intellectual qua gatekeeper, in that necessary role serving to further the creeping and not unimpenetrable calcification of human linguistic torture" and anyone who has to read your writing will wish you were dead, which is bad, or copy you, which is worse.
But if you don't, or if you can reasonably use simpler words, don't use the big ones.
A dumb man says little with few words.
A smart man says a lot with many words.
A wise man says the least.
People might find it surprising that students were explicitly told to write as simply as possible. I come to prefer this way of writing and its a clear benefit in written communication.
It looks like there are some assumptions on why someone would write a blog. If my goal was to get the most visibility with my blog, I would choose a simpler writing style because I think its the most efficient.
More long form or flowery prose can still be posted, if that is what your audience is looking for.
- one idea per email
- exec summary must be first ... don't lay out a case then summarize at the end
- only 1 question per email
if it's more complex than that, you need to break it up into a kind of detective clue-hunting trap sequence, where you ask each question in turn, in a multiple exchange thread. never try to shortcut it / condense into a single message.
- it is acceptable for your signature to be multiples of the body size
The vast majority of things that I was told to write about were objectively uninteresting and SHOULD have been summarized in a paragraph or two. So I padded those babies out with long words, meandering and passive phrasing, tangents, definitions, and so forth. I don't think any teacher or professor ever directly called me out for obviously sacrificing quality for correctness. But in hindsight, I rather wish they had.
(There's probably a deeper story in here about how some parts of college actively prevent students from succeeding in real life.)
- Don't litter your piece with links. Readers often don't know where they lead, whether the linked information is important for understanding the article, and which links may be skipped safely. So each link will slow the reader down, and make it more likely that they stop reading the whole thing. Similar to an overly long piece.
Better:
- skip links that are not strictly necessary
- replace links with short explanations of the core idea of the linked article, if possible (i.e. don't link to Wikipedia if you can quickly explain the concept in a sentence)
- only include links in a way that makes it is clear what is explained in the link target, so readers know whether they even have to click on it or not
Except on HN, because we're above it all.
~$ su - roman