Hacker News Reader

Comment by yojo | Hacker News Reader

Reminds me of a line by Douglas Adams describing some particularly crude alien invaders:

“The ships hung in the sky in much the same way that bricks don’t.”

He could have written something like: “The blocky ships hovered seemingly in defiance of gravity.”

Instead he picked a phrasing that’s intentionally a little hard to parse, but the reader feels clever for taking the time to get the joke, and remembers it.

Paul’s style of removing all friction might help the concepts slide smoothly into one’s brain, but as antirez points out, they’re less likely to stick.

View on HN

FTA:

> This is only true of writing that's used to develop ideas, though.

Descriptive writing, especially for fiction, seems out of scope.

Everything starts as fiction for the reader, especially new ideas.

It becomes more than that once it gets understood or comprehended.

The idea of "haecceitas" has been floating amongst the ... Pop-literati

https://www.scribblejerk.com/blog/haecceity-rules

My take is that it's "writing that calls attention to itself" (or, if you want, writing that is clearly off the wall)

Not sure if it can't be applied to exposition, Pontiggia managed it as above?

Some pecunious would like it reduced to Jobs ("editing is all you need") but I'd argue Jony has the sparkle, the je ne sais quoi, the more than just functional

I think that the last time I ran across "haecceitas" in a literary context was in an essay by Randall Jarrell. My guess is that he was referring to William Carlos Williams. In that case, Jarrell meant writing that tried to engage each thing as it is, not as part of a larger class.

Yepp the "academic" flavour of it is ... slightly different (& less relevant imho to parent thread) ... than the pop-cultural one, should have stressed that it exists ntheless. Thank you for providing more context for "context elision" :)!

Dave Barry writes like that, all the time (a lot less so, these days). He uses it for comedic twists, and usually integrated with other tricks.

His writing is known for a very smooth cadence. You reach these “lumps” in the narrative, and can almost miss them, which, for me, multiplies their impact.

I’ve always considered him one of the best writers that I’ve read. He probably gets less credit than he deserves (although I think he’s won a Pulitzer), because of his subject matter; sort of like Leslie Nielsen, or Victor Borge, who were both masters of their art.

Any suggestions to wade into his work?

Here's his Website: https://www.davebarry.com

Has a delightful 90's flavor.

He was a columnist for the Miami Herald, for many years, and has written a number of books. The site will let you read a number of his columns. His books read about the same, but longer.

Absolute riot.

Agreed.

Check out Keynes or 1950s American writing such as https://history.state.gov/historicaldocuments/frus1950v01/d8....

To me the first sentence sounds much better than the second, so by pg's standard it's better.

> “The ships hung in the sky in much the same way that bricks don’t.”

That is probably my favourite phrase from the whole book. For some reason I find it hilarious. It has stuck in my brain in much the same way that names don't.

Great example, love this.

Paul’s style of removing all friction might help the concepts slide smoothly into one’s brain, but as antirez points out, they’re less likely to stick.

That's fine. The ideas transmit, the words are forgotten. He doesn't need to use memorable sentences if he's saying what he's trying to say.

Paul Graham is a very skilled communicator. He's not a writer's writer like YKW, but he doesn't need to be.

Idk, I'm conflicted here because PG is the embodiment of a poor amateur writer with good ideas.

He is literally the proof that writing can be bad (albeit we should define what good and bad writing are and agree on it) but still interesting because of the ideas.

Hard disagree. I find PG’s writing to be some of the best writing out there, for essays.

I write for living (albeit in Czech) and I don't think that PGs writing is bad. It is not artistically brilliant (unlike Douglas Adams'), but he gets his points clearly across, and uses a language that even foreigners with limited command of English can parse.

That's good in my opinion - in the same sense that hammer which drives down nails flawlessly is good. PG is not trying to write colorful fiction, he wants to communicate something, and he succeeds in doing so. It is still a hammer, not a statue of David, but there are good and bad hammers, and this is a good hammer. You wouldn't want to drive nails into boards with a statue of David anyway.

> but he gets his points clearly across

I don't share that fully, and I've read every single one of his essays, his arid style gets tough after few paragraphs, it's too dense and harsh, sentences are consistently very short so it feels like reading a machine gun.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com