I had the following thought, and then went looking for others who had said it before. Wasn’t hard to find: There are two types of writers, Schopenhauer once observed, those who write because they have something they have to say and those who write for the sake of writing.
"Take any good piece of writing, something that matters to you. Why is it good? Because of what it says. Because what the writer manages to communicate to you, their reader. It’s because of what’s within it, not how they wrote it."
It feels dangerous to disagree with Robin Hanson, but as far as I can tell this is almost completely wrong.
You can make almost any piece of writing good, no matter what it says. "Bond. James Bond." isn't a famous line because it expresses something deep and meaningful. It's a throwaway part of a basic plotline. It's a good line because it's a nice example of the rhetorical technique of diacope.
Take Shakespeare. The greatest writer in the English language, almost without question, but not because his plots were uniquely brilliant (they *were* good, but not alone enough to justify being the best). Shakespeare's particular genius was eloquence. Think of almost any famous Shakespeare line, and I could name the rhetorical trick it relies on. "To be or not to be?"? Diacope. "Sound and fury"? Hendiadys. "Love is not love which alters when it alteration finds"? Hyperbaton, polyptoton.
"A poet is not somebody who has great thoughts. That is the menial duty of the philosopher. A poet is somebody who expresses his thoughts, however commonplace they may be, exquisitely."
I think Johnson was referring to literary writing - books and articles - not practical documents like contracts and laws, notes and notices, signage, documentation, etc.
Most of the Founders were lawyers by profession - as such they were indeed paid to write.
And, of course, writing comments on blogs is not "hard work"; it's no harder than talking. The hard part is organizing complex thoughts in a larger document.
Better to find a topic where humanity seems to be able to make intellectual progress via arguments, and then also to specialize in a particular subtopic, a subtopic about which few others write.
But this isn't how intellectual progress has actually occurred. The best minds have focused on a few problems that occupy the center stage of intellectual attention.
I think Johnson was speaking from personal experience. He wasn't exactly an intellectual. Sort of a sui generis individual. An extraordinarily skilled writer, however.
As a generalization, Johnson's is clearly wrong. Some people feel compelled to write. (I don't think they're necessarily blockheads, but perhaps Johnson would define them that way.)
Dale Carnegie said that a public speaker must have earned the right to talk. That applies to writers as well. Which means knowing a lot about life. Marco Arturo aside, young people generally don't know a lot about life. Still they badly want to write. The solution is fantasy, where you can invent your own social and physical laws. It's easier to write non-fiction. In a month you can learn enough on most subjects to have earned the right to talk. Feature-writers often have to do it in a couple of hours.
But for readers of non-fiction who want to learn factual information about the real world, rather than just let the author convince them of their views, writing style and content are in opposition.
Have you often (ever?) encountered highly important insights into complex and controversial subjects that were incompetently stated?
The abilities to think and to express thoughts develop together. (As one social scientist said, intellectuals are individuals who are "always scribbling.") Moreover, the perfection of an idea often is inseparable from its expression. Intellectuals test ideas (partly) by perfecting their expression. Ideas are properly abandoned because of defects revealed by trying to express them elegantly.
I meant did not require any unusual personal experiences for him to appreciate.
Yes, the events he describes are profound in the sense of very moving and emotionally important. They are not profound in the way that one would call a mathematical insight profound, i.e., representing some unusual insight.
In other words there was no need for Shakespeare himself to have lived a particularly extraordinary life to write the things he did.
Doesn't it seem implausible that something that is often of predominant importance in fiction has negligible importance in nonfiction?
Yes, but the question is: important to whom?
From the perspective of the writer, style is important in both fiction and non-fiction - in the former it helps make your writing more enjoyable, in the latter it makes your case more convincing. For readers of fiction who want to be entertained, better quality writing seems to be entirely a good thing with no downsides. Nothing bad happens if you get tricked into enjoying a novel whose plot is weak but whose prose is beautiful - I don't think most people care much about what exactly it is about fiction that entertains them, they just want to be entertained. So both content and style are aimed at delivering the same thing.
But for readers of non-fiction who want to learn factual information about the real world, rather than just let the author convince them of their views, writing style and content are in opposition. It certainly is possible to get tricked into believing someone's bad arguments just because they're phrased so elegantly. So when it comes to non-fiction, it probably is worth slightly discounting arguments from brilliant writers, and giving slightly more weight to poorly written arguments, to counteract your natural bias to believe claims more when they're phrased better.
Doesn't it seem implausible that something that is often of predominant importance in fiction has negligible importance in nonfiction?
No, I don't think so. What is appropriate in writing depends on your purpose. I read this blog to learn -- I like it when I feel I've improved (even a bit) my understanding of social patterns because of some post. Note, though, that learning is of course not the only reason why people read. Poor style can severely impair reading as pure entertainment, as in fiction.
For fiction books as well as for movies, how one tells a story is often much more important than the plot itself.
Doesn't it seem implausible that something that is often of predominant importance in fiction has negligible importance in nonfiction?
Consider philosophy. Much of Nietzsche's greatness was stylistic. While few if any great philosophers were terrible writers, Kant is comparatively bad, and his unstellar writing style weakened his rigor. (See Walter Kaufman.)
Suppose this young would-be writer gets a job as a reporter. Ideally that means going out into the world to find stuff out and then writing about it. Seems like the best of both worlds? (Other than the pay, that is.)
Of course this isn't the same as doing a lot of research in a single topic. But the research-write-publish loop is faster, getting exposed to a lot of different subjects is useful, and decreasing cycle time seems like a good way to learn how do things, at least at the beginning.
"Take any good piece of writing, something that matters to you. Why is it good? Because of what it says. Because what the writer manages to communicate to you, their reader. It’s because of what’s within it, not how they wrote it."
It feels dangerous to disagree with Robin Hanson, but as far as I can tell this is almost completely wrong.
You can make almost any piece of writing good, no matter what it says. "Bond. James Bond." isn't a famous line because it expresses something deep and meaningful. It's a throwaway part of a basic plotline. It's a good line because it's a nice example of the rhetorical technique of diacope.
Take Shakespeare. The greatest writer in the English language, almost without question, but not because his plots were uniquely brilliant (they *were* good, but not alone enough to justify being the best). Shakespeare's particular genius was eloquence. Think of almost any famous Shakespeare line, and I could name the rhetorical trick it relies on. "To be or not to be?"? Diacope. "Sound and fury"? Hendiadys. "Love is not love which alters when it alteration finds"? Hyperbaton, polyptoton.
"A poet is not somebody who has great thoughts. That is the menial duty of the philosopher. A poet is somebody who expresses his thoughts, however commonplace they may be, exquisitely."
I think Johnson was referring to literary writing - books and articles - not practical documents like contracts and laws, notes and notices, signage, documentation, etc.
Most of the Founders were lawyers by profession - as such they were indeed paid to write.
And, of course, writing comments on blogs is not "hard work"; it's no harder than talking. The hard part is organizing complex thoughts in a larger document.
I wonder if Thomas Jefferson is still getting royalties for the Declaration.
"Marco Arturo aside, young people generally don't know a lot about life."
Most people know stuff that most people don't know. A teenager living in Calcutta knows a lot more about life in Calcutta than I do.
"The underlying stories of Shakespeare as based on some of the most famous events in history"
Does anyone appreciate Shakespeare for having gained knowledge of historic events?
"and were tools for him to express thoughts on power, love, hate, wealth, etc."
Like what?
"Writing is hard work."
I don't know about that. Given the right circumstances, some people find writing not particularly effortful, nor time-consuming.
Better to find a topic where humanity seems to be able to make intellectual progress via arguments, and then also to specialize in a particular subtopic, a subtopic about which few others write.
But this isn't how intellectual progress has actually occurred. The best minds have focused on a few problems that occupy the center stage of intellectual attention.
I think Johnson was speaking from personal experience. He wasn't exactly an intellectual. Sort of a sui generis individual. An extraordinarily skilled writer, however.
As a generalization, Johnson's is clearly wrong. Some people feel compelled to write. (I don't think they're necessarily blockheads, but perhaps Johnson would define them that way.)
Dale Carnegie said that a public speaker must have earned the right to talk. That applies to writers as well. Which means knowing a lot about life. Marco Arturo aside, young people generally don't know a lot about life. Still they badly want to write. The solution is fantasy, where you can invent your own social and physical laws. It's easier to write non-fiction. In a month you can learn enough on most subjects to have earned the right to talk. Feature-writers often have to do it in a couple of hours.
But for readers of non-fiction who want to learn factual information about the real world, rather than just let the author convince them of their views, writing style and content are in opposition.
Have you often (ever?) encountered highly important insights into complex and controversial subjects that were incompetently stated?
The abilities to think and to express thoughts develop together. (As one social scientist said, intellectuals are individuals who are "always scribbling.") Moreover, the perfection of an idea often is inseparable from its expression. Intellectuals test ideas (partly) by perfecting their expression. Ideas are properly abandoned because of defects revealed by trying to express them elegantly.
I meant did not require any unusual personal experiences for him to appreciate.
Yes, the events he describes are profound in the sense of very moving and emotionally important. They are not profound in the way that one would call a mathematical insight profound, i.e., representing some unusual insight.
In other words there was no need for Shakespeare himself to have lived a particularly extraordinary life to write the things he did.
Doesn't it seem implausible that something that is often of predominant importance in fiction has negligible importance in nonfiction?
Yes, but the question is: important to whom?
From the perspective of the writer, style is important in both fiction and non-fiction - in the former it helps make your writing more enjoyable, in the latter it makes your case more convincing. For readers of fiction who want to be entertained, better quality writing seems to be entirely a good thing with no downsides. Nothing bad happens if you get tricked into enjoying a novel whose plot is weak but whose prose is beautiful - I don't think most people care much about what exactly it is about fiction that entertains them, they just want to be entertained. So both content and style are aimed at delivering the same thing.
But for readers of non-fiction who want to learn factual information about the real world, rather than just let the author convince them of their views, writing style and content are in opposition. It certainly is possible to get tricked into believing someone's bad arguments just because they're phrased so elegantly. So when it comes to non-fiction, it probably is worth slightly discounting arguments from brilliant writers, and giving slightly more weight to poorly written arguments, to counteract your natural bias to believe claims more when they're phrased better.
I have nothing but respect for reporters who report on real relevant news.
Doesn't it seem implausible that something that is often of predominant importance in fiction has negligible importance in nonfiction?
No, I don't think so. What is appropriate in writing depends on your purpose. I read this blog to learn -- I like it when I feel I've improved (even a bit) my understanding of social patterns because of some post. Note, though, that learning is of course not the only reason why people read. Poor style can severely impair reading as pure entertainment, as in fiction.
For fiction books as well as for movies, how one tells a story is often much more important than the plot itself.
Doesn't it seem implausible that something that is often of predominant importance in fiction has negligible importance in nonfiction?
Consider philosophy. Much of Nietzsche's greatness was stylistic. While few if any great philosophers were terrible writers, Kant is comparatively bad, and his unstellar writing style weakened his rigor. (See Walter Kaufman.)
Suppose this young would-be writer gets a job as a reporter. Ideally that means going out into the world to find stuff out and then writing about it. Seems like the best of both worlds? (Other than the pay, that is.)
Of course this isn't the same as doing a lot of research in a single topic. But the research-write-publish loop is faster, getting exposed to a lot of different subjects is useful, and decreasing cycle time seems like a good way to learn how do things, at least at the beginning.