Item — HN Reader

I don't think we need to credit him or reconcile anything, what he says is not wrong or hypocritical, it is just his view of what makes a good blog post. I disagree with him but the only consequence for him is that I won't read his blog unless I feel compelled to because I want to join in the discussion on somewhere like HN and don't want to be one of those people who interjects into a discussion on an article they did not read, even if the conversation is clearly about the title and not the article or marginally related topics or I simply want to make a marginally related comment.

For me, it is the way he presents and develops ideas that prevents me from reading, it reminds me of reading a tutorial on how to reach his conclusion. Some people probably like the style, some probably don't care about the style, and some like me struggle to even skim a short post like TFA. But I find a great deal of what is on the internet to be difficult to read and think nothing of reading a book like Infinite Jest in a week. I am not the target audience.

Edit: Fixed some editing weirdness, I think.

1 comments

We seem to be of like mind on this matter then. I look forward to us reconvening the next time Gwern hits the front page and we each feel compelled to voice some kind of informed dissent on the subject. Dissent probably isn’t the right word here because I don’t think either of us actually disagree with what he’s saying.

How fun is a conversation once it’s established that both parties are in agreement about something in principle? Does one probe to be provocative?

I place high expectations on writing that 1) I feel is right up my alley because I think I’m already familiar with the topic and 2) I’m unfamiliar with but am eager to learn about—it sparks my curiosity. Not all writing meets these expectations and this is probably why I’m disgusted by the though of using LLMs for information about subjects I have a genuine enthusiasm for and can care less about doing so for others, at least until I can figure out whether I want to know more about it. Then the subject becomes forbidden to prompt about.

> For me, it is the way he presents and develops ideas that prevents me from reading, it reminds me of reading a tutorial on how to reach his conclusion.

My assumption is that this kind of writing exists somewhere along the same strand of writing that lends itself to what’s expected from some writing in public school (‘Good writing is what shows the reader/teacher that you correctly grasped the material that was taught to you’); writing that is received well by ’The Masses™’ or some in-group (‘Good writing is what shows the reader/audience that you’re beliefs are in correct alignment with theirs’); something like a mathematical proof (a more literal representation of how to reach a conclusion if I correctly understand what a mathematical proof is); and a well-formed atomic note written for private consideration.

If your goal is communication, isn't being well received by the masses a very applicable measurement of good writing? David Foster Wallace's contribution to the world is primarily indirect, filtered down to the masses by "bad" writers who are more pragmatic about things and take into account that most people don't want to spend 1000 pages analyzing a topic, don't even want to spend 10 pages doing it, they want it boiled down to a simple choice so they can decide if it is of value to them, if it can improve their life and I can't blame or judge them for that. Wallace certainly did not blame them for it, just felt they should be conscious of why they came to a conclusion instead of blindly accepting it because it is their conclusion.

His general style is simple and direct, how we all learn to write essays in school. He writes his outline, diligently follows it while writing his draft, edits the draft and then publishes it. There is nothing inherently wrong or bad about this, I just would rather read something which explores the idea instead of makes an assertion about it, but he is writing about what he looks for in his reading. I would not call it good writing but I also would not call it bad, it is just uninteresting to me.