
How to Write Articles and Essays Quickly and Expertly (2006) - bemmu
http://www.downes.ca/post/38526
======
tunesmith
I think about presenting arguments a lot. Arguments are best represented in
DAG form; mostly a tree structure, although some premises might support
multiple conclusions so it's inherently graph-based (graphical data
structure). Because some conclusions are often lemmas supporting further
conclusions, arguments can go several levels deep.

I like envisioning them with the conclusion on the top and the premises on the
bottom, although people often visualize them flipped in another direction.

But the trick comes in presenting the argument to someone else, verbally, in a
presentation, or through writing. What is the best way to do it?

Because your goal isn't just to impart information; it's also to be convincing
and to hope that your counterparts get invested in the conclusion.

I find that if the conclusion is counterintuitive, then starting with the
conclusion can create resistance. People love to interrupt and argue against
something they disagree with even if they haven't thought it through.

On the other hand, starting with a bunch of premises devoid of context can
just feel unrooted.

I guess I generally try to analyze the argument to find the highest (closest
to conclusion) points that are not controversial, start with those, and then
try to talk about the surprising conclusion that they imply. It can be a real
workout, though, trying to anticipate responses, being open to feedback while
still working towards your conclusion.

I wonder if this sort of thing is related to any algorithmic concepts, like
most efficient ways to walk a DAG.

~~~
jarmitage
I conceptualise arguments in the same way. I think the requirement of
serialising arguments and evidence is bogus for the age we live in and would
much rather just give the whole graph to an audience to play with, and then
elaborate and discuss as needed. Or heaven forbid the reader could have write
access!

~~~
bemmu
In the end you have to examine the arguments in some order. By deciding the
order you are reducing work for the reader in finding a pleasant traversal of
the graph.

~~~
tunesmith
Maybe you're increasing the work by deciding an order. I've testing this
approach several times of actually laying out complex arguments graphviz-style
and watching people's eyes as they review it. Everyone seems to traverse the
graph differently, depending on which parts challenge them.

~~~
jarmitage
Do you have a paper about this? Sounds fascinating

------
idlewords
The best guide I've ever read to writing nonfiction is William Zinsser's "On
Writing Well". If you do any writing for work or pleasure, his advice is
indispensable:

[https://www.amazon.com/Writing-Well-Classic-Guide-
Nonfiction...](https://www.amazon.com/Writing-Well-Classic-Guide-
Nonfiction/dp/0060891548)

~~~
krmmalik
Completely agree. I learned more in 2 weeks of reading Zinsser than I did in 3
yrs of English at high school.

~~~
chatmasta
_On Writing Well_ and _Elements of Style_ were required reading in almost
every English class I took. Sounds like you had some bad teachers.

~~~
krmmalik
It's not a part of our curriculum in the UK. I, and many others like me, had
never heard of him before.

------
tikhonj
The article provides four categories of essays: argument, explanation,
definition, description.

Personally, I've found it useful to think of almost _everything_ I write as a
variation on "argument". Perhaps I'm _also_ describing, defining or explaining
something, but there's always a core substrate of _persuading_. A integral
part of defining something well, for example, is to simultaneously argue for
why the defined idea is interesting and useful; without that, it's all too
easy to descend into abstract nonsense.

My approach isn't universally applicable—it leads to a particular writing
style—but it certainly helped _me_ in organizing my writing and organizing my
_thoughts_. Whenever I write I'm always making a point even if I wouldn't
classically think of it as a "persuasive" essay.

~~~
qznc
I see a fundamental conflict for writing between persuasion and logical
argumentation.

Persuasive writing means I want to reader to get into an agreement habit.
Start with something uncontroversial and work towards your core point. Avoid
detours. Avoid negative triggers. In contrast, for a logical argument you
should include objections and address them.

Persuasion works on a more psychological level and logic is not that relevant.
As long as you don't trigger too many bullshit detectors in your audience, you
are fine without logic.

~~~
vonnik
According to Aristotle, persuasion has three parts - logos, pathos and ethos.
Your logical argumentation is logos, a powerful tool but not the only way to
persuade. Pathos is the appeal to feeling (avoid triggers), and ethos is the
establishment of trust, authority, credentials, character. Different
persuasive tactics work with different audiences. On HN, logos can work. In US
elections, pathos tends to work.

------
dredmorbius
This essay is a counterexample to its own argument.

It's poorly written, verbose, poorly organised, self-serving, and offers
little in the way of solid advice.

An expert essay should have a point and purpose, and execute it with
competence. This means a few things, but among others, it means having a grasp
of your subject, an understanding of others' understanding _or lack_ of it, a
firm grasp of the _boundaries_ of your subject, if those are salient, and the
capacity to communicate clearly and with interest. Recognising that all
writing is a favour to the _reader_ and not the _author_ is also key.

I'm contrasting this essay and its glib advice to Neal Stephenson's "Why I am
a Poor Correspondent", in which Stephenson excuses his infrequent presence in
email, online discussions and social media, and on interviews and conference
panels: he requires long blocks of time, and days of them on end, to be able
to produce his primary product, long and complex novels.

I've occasionally spilled out long essays in a single continuous pour with
little further major revision necessary (though _numerous_ fixes, corrections,
and tweaks are virtually always needed). The experience is an exception, and
almost always happens _only_ on material I've been thinking over for a long
time -- weeks, months, years.

I'm sitting on at least a half-dozen essays and reviews right now that I've
been kicking around for most of the year, so nine months, simply because I've
not had the time and space to organise my thoughts and secure uninterrupted
keyboard time in front of a system at which I can call up and incorporate
references, and do the topics in mind proper justice. It's frustrating, but as
with David Byrne, when I've nothing to say, my lips are sealed. Or at least
that's my goal.

There's a difference between firehosing words onto a page or into an edit-
buffer, and actually _writing_ a coherent, cogent, intelligent piece.

This piece fails at that, and fails (other than by contradiction) to show how.

~~~
WhitneyLand
Agreed. In fact, I can't understand why this repost from 2006 is popular
enough to linger on the first page.

------
philelly
this essay's style seems endemic in tech writing: logorrheic and trafficking
in technical details/protocols in place of the underlying principles (cogency,
brevity, a single unifying argument that can be simply stated).

i appreciate any tips to aid my writing, but i think very few match the tried
and true approach of reading masters of the craft and revising one's writing,
again and again, for brevity. i suspect that the blog format discourages the
latter.

~~~
pcrh
I somewhat agree with you here. In fact, as soon as the article starting
drifting into lists, I stopped reading and scanned the rest.

~~~
mthoms
I also agree. But it occurred to me that the authors intent was probably to
create a sort of _reference guide_ that could be referred to over and over in
order to apply the techniques discussed.

In that context, the use of lists makes a lot more sense. What's interesting
is that the article also seems to be written in conversational style while at
the same time intending to be a re-usable reference. At least, that's my take
on it.

------
osteele
Cf. Paul Graham's “The Age of the Essay” (2004)
[http://www.paulgraham.com/essay.html](http://www.paulgraham.com/essay.html)

Graham's essay is and describes a fifth category of essay. Graham calls this
approach “meandering”; it might also be called “exploratory”.

~~~
idlewords
"An army of words escorting a corporal of thought."

~~~
igravious
Beware the "One who approaches Greatness on his belly so that he may not be
commanded to turn and be kicked."

------
lutusp
Why am I not surprised at the poor quality of this writer's prose? An
uncontroversial observation that's made worse by its intent -- to teach others
how to write. Even the title --

"How to Write Articles and Essays Quickly and Expertly"

\-- contains a contradiction: by definition, an expert doesn't require
tutorial instruction (expertise is not a transferable consumer product). The
essay goes quickly downhill from there.

One more example:

"But part of it is a simple strategy for writing your essays and articles
quickly and expertly, a strategy that allows you to plan your entire essay as
you write it, and thus to allow you to make your first draft your final
draft."

The observation this sentence makes is self-falsifying. The sentence is too
long and meandering and cries out for the compassionate intervention of an
editor.

~~~
coldshower
The article is a mind dump from his blog Half an Hour. The tagline should
explain it all: _A place to write, half an hour, every day, just for me._

URL: [http://halfanhour.blogspot.ca/](http://halfanhour.blogspot.ca/)

------
WhitneyLand
What is Stephen Downes primary job? He describes himself as a senior
researcher and makes bold claims of pioneering and important work in the field
of e-learning.

Maybe I'm missing his peer reviewed research, I don't see any. I read one
unreviewed paper on "Learning Objects" and it had so much fluff it bordered on
crankery.

Best I can tell he writes blog posts and articles for web sites.

~~~
sopooneo
Your assessment of Downes may be correct. But I can tell you, that even in
actual academic journals, "education research" is a level of self-sustaining
garbage like nothing else you have ever encountered. I say this as someone
that completed a MEd among some others that went on to be absolute magicians
in the classroom. But 90% of the reading assigned for that degree could have
passed for parody.

~~~
WhitneyLand
Wow, I had no idea thanks for explaining that.

------
joshmn
I really like stuff like this. You know, where it's laid out in a
straightforward, no-noise formula for doing something. Does anyone have any
more of these types of things? Social interactions, design patterns, anything.
I love them.

------
Spooky23
If you focus on the basics, writing descriptive text is really easy.

Structure is important. First, be direct and make whatever assertion of
statement that you are going to make. Next provide arguments, facts or other
narrative that support the assertion. Finally close the narrative.

Avoid trying to be too clever. An essay isn't a conversation, and introducing
conversational tone is confusing to the reader. Don't be funny. Edit
mercilessly.

Finally, before you start writing, have a plan about what you are going to
say, either in your head or in an outline. Don't let the mechanics of writing
get in your way -- if you know what you are going to say, it will be easier to
say it.

------
bikamonki
You cannot fake expert. You cannot rush expert.

------
jcoffland
Was anyone else bothered by the numerous type-os? I counted at least 10.

~~~
zodiac
Did you mean typo?
[http://www.thefreedictionary.com/typo](http://www.thefreedictionary.com/typo)

~~~
jcoffland
Yeah, just goes to show that your first draft should not be your final.

------
banusaur
This article is bad advice. Any fool can string a few words together. Truly
writing means re-writing.

Your first draft is always going to be ugly, raw data. Writing as a craft
means taking that given set of words and processing it until it's concise and
clear. Cut and replace until your argument is airtight.

And another thing: all writing is argument.

There are so many great essays about writing that are infinitely better than
this - I'm surprised this gained so much traction on HN.

Here's one of my favorites by George Orwell:
[http://www.orwell.ru/library/essays/politics/english/e_polit...](http://www.orwell.ru/library/essays/politics/english/e_polit/)

------
partycoder
For some basic tips, I have found the site "foxtype.com" to be very good. It
analyses your text for politeness and conciseness it asks you to rephrase
text.

\-- (now, this is the foxtype suggested text)

For some basic tips, the site "foxtype.com" to be good. It analyses text for
politeness and conciseness and it suggests alternatives to phrases.

~~~
mthoms
Unfortunately, they don't seem to have an API. Can anyone recommend something
like this that has a REST API?

~~~
mannykannot
You might want to take a closer look at the suggested rewrite (especially the
initial not-quite-a-sentence) first...

~~~
partycoder
It was my bad not the website.

------
nxzero
Citing authoritative sources is easily the easiest way to be seen as an
expert. Next is having them cite you as an expert source, which is not as hard
as it might seem.

~~~
dredmorbius
A slight difference of opinion.

Citing authoritative sources doesn't convey expertise, _but is a courtesy to
the reader_. If you're going to say or claim something, _back it up_. I'm also
picky about _how_ sources are cited, and for anything more than a brief
reference, I prefer the author and work be mentioned at least on the first
instance, _in the text_. I'm reading Vaclav Smil currently, who follows the
model of (Smith 2015), which I find ... kind of useless:

* It's more invasive than a simple footnote or endnote.

* It's less descriptive than "George Smith, _A Work of Some Note_ ". Which tells me, without having to turn to the back of the book, _what I want to look up_.

* Footnotes, as opposed to endnotes, allow me to quickly find, _on the page_ what it is that's being referenced. This is quite out of fashion. So am I.

(On the other hand, endnotes allow quickly skimming all notes of a book in one
place. I don't believe this compensates for their numerous other
disadvantages.)

Expertise isn't based on citing _an expert_ , but in _noting the dimensions of
a topic or concept_ , and in particular, the credibly disagreeing points of
view.

William Ophuls is an author I respect in this. He's absolutely got a point of
view (he writes on applying ecological limits to political concepts). But he
also notes his principle critics and exemplars of opposing points of view, and
frequently considers their views, data, and arguments. This increases my
consideration of him greatly.

------
mgalka
What a great post! Very clear and practically helpful. Thanks for posting.

------
nwatson
Pragmatics ... en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pragmatics

------
bencollier49
tl;dr

