[HN Gopher] Tips for making writing more fun
___________________________________________________________________
Tips for making writing more fun
Author : davnicwil
Score : 82 points
Date : 2022-01-03 20:11 UTC (2 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (davnicwil.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (davnicwil.com)
| V-2 wrote:
| > it's perfectly fine to just stop cold and publish if a wrap up
| doesn't flow naturally.
|
| > Honestly, nobody cares. The fun part's done, and most readers
| will detect the wrap up section of a post and will usually stop
| reading there anyway.
|
| And that's how the text just ends - self+referential advice
| detected :)
| selfhifive wrote:
| It depends on the content. Generally I'd say the one idea per
| paragraph and topic sentence followed by arguments approach is
| the best because it's the most common way of argument
| construction.
|
| Personally I love it when jargon is clearly defined in context
| and the arguments are constructed as if-then-else statements.
| bananamerica wrote:
| What the author calls "caveats" I call being clear and precise.
| Too much of that can become a drag, but reasoning without some
| kind of nuance, exceptions, etc, is just too weak, and will only
| persuade those that already agree with you. You may also sound
| like a jersey.
| codeptualize wrote:
| Nice article! I can see how that can make writing more fun.
|
| At risk of being one of the nitpickers; I do quite enjoy reading
| caveats, also sidebars if either entertaining or informative.
| Very much agree that it should only be done if it benefits the
| story. I would say you strike a nice balance in your article
| haha.
| wombatmobile wrote:
| > At risk of being one of the nitpickers; I do quite enjoy
| reading caveats
|
| Caveats are sometimes in order. Other times not.
|
| It depends...
| codeptualize wrote:
| haha nice caveat ;), fully agree!
| themadturk wrote:
| I don't really agree with his advice on caveats. Yes, they can
| certainly go overboard...but giving your reader a reason to go to
| Google is a potentially lost reader whose eyes are suddenly not
| on your article but a dozen clicks away reading something else.
| bachmeier wrote:
| > Cut out explanations of stuff you're about to write about. The
| danger zone for these is introductory paragraphs.
|
| It depends. You have to let the reader know (i) what you're
| talking about, and (ii) what you're really saying. An example:
| Suppose you write about how taxes are bad. What do you mean by
| "taxes"? What else happens other than the tax change? What
| current event is behind your decision to write about the topic?
|
| The author is right if there's an introductory paragraph with a
| dictionary definition of taxes and then describing how taxes are
| collected in the US. If the introductory paragraph provides
| different tax rates (income, capital gains, etc.) and explains
| what they cover, who pays them, and so on, it's useful to
| include. You should err on the side of too much background rather
| than too little.
| vlark wrote:
| The entire blog post could have been a bullet list if he followed
| his own suggestions #1 & #3.
| davnicwil wrote:
| I wouldn't have had as much fun writing that bullet point list,
| though :-)
| reidjs wrote:
| The post is just a bullet list with some elaboration on each
| point.
| yepthatsreality wrote:
| Isn't every piece of writing?
| mooreds wrote:
| Other tips for making writing more fun, from someone who does it
| for a living (plus some other stuff #devrellife):
| * make it a story. If you are writing about an application
| framework, use an example application and make it something real
| (a todo app, a real estate search app, something you have
| personal experience with). * link to your other stuff. He
| has a good point about sidebars (don't do it), but if you have
| written about something tangential previously, links are a nice
| way to avoid that. Works for pointing to other people's work as
| well. * just ship it. He alludes to this in the last
| point, but seriously, the perfect blog post that never is
| published is 100% worse than the 80% done blog post. *
| remember that while you are obsessing over everything, your
| reader likely isn't. Recall how closely you read this article?
| That is how closely most readers will read anything you publish.
| * start with the end in mind (the title and the conclusion should
| be related and the thread should run through it). * kill
| your darlings. If something doesn't fit, no matter how
| interesting or witty it is, copy it off to some other doc
| (possibly for another article). Or delete it. Either way, remove
| it from your piece.
| devadvance wrote:
| > Assume readers know the basics or will look them up [...] One
| of the beautiful things about reading on the internet is that
| google is just a click away.
|
| Especially in the case of technical jargon, it's a good middle
| ground to link to a relevant definition directly. That avoids the
| friction of a suboptimal in-line definition _and_ the friction of
| forcing a multi-click lookup. A beautiful part of the internet is
| links :).
|
| > Instead of leaving posts as a boring todo chore in the drafts
| folder, it's perfectly fine to just stop cold and publish if a
| wrap up doesn't flow naturally. Honestly, nobody cares.
|
| While I agree with publishing incomplete content, I would argue
| that this is an exception to the "Don't caveat, just say it"
| section from earlier. It's often helpful to caveat incomplete
| content because it treats the reader with greater respect.
| davnicwil wrote:
| > A beautiful part of the internet is links
|
| You are right of course and I also always appreciate this when
| done well! Think you're right it's best used for stuff like
| technical jargon where very good and specific info can be
| difficult to find via an open-ended search.
| baud147258 wrote:
| > > Assume readers know the basics or will look them up [...]
| One of the beautiful things about reading on the internet is
| that google is just a click away.
|
| > Especially in the case of technical jargon, it's a good
| middle ground to link to a relevant definition directly. That
| avoids the friction of a suboptimal in-line definition and the
| friction of forcing a multi-click lookup. A beautiful part of
| the internet is links :).
|
| I remember one personal website that's been linked on HN
| (https://www.gwern.net/) where hovering links show a preview of
| the page, a bit like wikipedia is doing, but not limited to the
| top, where it's possible to scroll up and down. I think a
| similar system could be interesting when dealing with technical
| subjects.
| Gravityloss wrote:
| The same holds for things like video. During corona times, I've
| developed a habit to watch videos about interesting subjects when
| eating lunch. So many videos about energy production technologies
| start with long stock footage pieces about climate change. I
| already know.
| TedDoesntTalk wrote:
| This is why I can't watch informational videos. There's no easy
| way to skip past the introduction. You either skip too little
| or too far. So I try to stick to reading, where I can scan and
| skip and go back or forward easily.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2022-01-03 23:00 UTC)