Item — HN Reader

tl; dr:

1. Sets the topic of "What is a good essay?"

2. Asserts that correctness is necessary, but not sufficient condition for a good essay.

3. Illustrates 2 by pointing out that by increasing vagueness, complete correctness is always possible. Characterizes correctness/precision as opposing forces.

4. Adds two more criteria for a good essay - telling people something important, and that they don't know

5. Adds the essential caveat that things we know subconsciously may be worth restating [crucially, as points 1-5 we all certainly subconsciously knew]

6. Adds a fourth dimension to a good essay: "as unequivocal as possible" [aka strength]

7. Highlights the inherent tradeoffs in satisfying these conditions. Increasing one dimension may reduce audience size.

8. Details an simple algorithm for only writing important/true things -- reviewing/revising one's own ideas heavily before publishing (up to 100 times)

9. Proposes a technique to find important topics: by examining the pool topics one cares about

10. Proposes a technique to find novel topics: By examining topics that you've thought about a lot [and surprised yourself with when you found a connection]

11. Suggests "strength" [6] comes from thinking well and skillful use of qualifiers.

12. Adds another quality to what makes a good essay -- simplicity

13. Proposes that good essays (by this formula) are particularly likely to make people mad

14. Identifies one cause of anger is that some widely-held incorrect beliefs an essay calls out are likely to be cherished beliefs

15. Mentions the strength component of very precise writing (as well as brevity) can come across as incredibly confident, and exacerbate the ruffling of feathers

16. Proposes that being misrepresented is particularly likely with this essay style, and isn't avoidable generally, but doesn't think one should worry too much about disingenuous misinterpretation.

17. Advises aspiring essayists to relax the constraint of breadth-of-audience/topics. Suggests publication isn't a necessity.

18. Provides some hopeful thoughts on the future of essays

Observations.

This is one of my longest tl; drs, particularly for a short essay. This to me signals high content ratio (low compressibility).

As somebody who tried for years to get people online to pay attention to my essays, I am not super confident that we have good content-discovery mechanisms for essays online [except video essays, which seem to thrive]. Thus I don't take this essay as personally relevant, as I am not personally convinced that a good essay written by an unfamous person, would warrant enough attention to justify the rigorous revision process.

I notice PG chooses to view the essay through an artistic/historic lens that puts him in the minority. It seems to me he strives very hard to stay above the primal desires that dominate the internet-attention-economy. A very tough challenge.

we all spinoza now