

Realizations that helped me write regularly - sunils34
http://joel.is/post/32338258448/5-realisations-that-helped-me-write-regularly

======
crux
What is it about the 'entrepreneur' (can we really still call it that?) that
makes him so susceptible to this kind of endless, self-perpetuating chaff?
What cultural force or common characteristic has led so many website founders
to believe that they should bloggers, to believe that by becoming bloggers
that they are writers—and perhaps most dazzlingly, to constantly consume and
recirculate self-obsessed, content-free articles like this one, which say
nothing of any substance and only recycle the same increasingly thin air first
breathed by Guy Kawasaki 20 years ago? What is it about this class of
businessperson that its members could hang out in a place called Hacker News,
spend a non-trivial amount of their time solving subtle, difficult puzzles of
design and development, and somehow also dive face-first into these lowest-
common-denominator, sub-Tony Robbins schlockfests with such gusto and
frequency?

~~~
Swizec
Quite simple - everyone relearns this stuff. It's not something you can read
and know, you have to arrive at it yourself.

As such it's something you feel is interesting to read about.

Also as such, it's easier reading somebody else's viewpoints on arriving at
these realizations than coming at them yourself.

It also happens to be remotely interesting to read the ever so subtle
differences in the lessons people learn.

Then one day you learn this stuff.

And the cycle repeats.

------
stephengillie

      1. Nobody fact checks
      2. Procrastination kills
      3. Shipping something awful is still a numinstance of "shipped"
      4. Writing is easy when I write about what I like and know
      5. Making a plan and sticking to it is now a .hack
    

Sorry for the pedantic response, but when an article trolls us, I want to
return the favor.

------
smacktoward
_Research or strong points are not necessary_

This gives me a sad.

~~~
rguzman
writing serves two purposes: telling the reader something and helping the
writer think. i think joel is mostly talking about optimizing for the latter
purpose, which is very useful to the writer.

that said, i can relate to the sentiment. most pieces that help authors think
just add noise when they become published. it can be hard to tell, though, and
since information is cheap nowadays you might as well publish everything and
leave it as a problem for the reader to filter.

~~~
joelg87
Indeed. I actually try my best to find good research, and by my nature of
reading many other blogs of founders much more successful than me, I often
have great insights in my mind to include in my articles.

My intention with this point was to take away the pressure. I think a personal
blog often can be more about the individual's thoughts than about solid
studies with large sample sizes. Even just a thought that comes into your mind
and you write down and publish within a couple of hours can be very
interesting to others.

Completely understand how this point could come across, but it's much more
about making it easier for a writer and showing that an article can be
thoughts rather than solid "evidence".

~~~
jessedhillon
This is an excellent quote, which I have used to shape my thoughts and
feelings on my writing:

"Good writers have two things in common: they prefer to be understood rather
than admired; and they do not write for knowing and over-acute readers." --
Friedrich Nietzsche

EDIT: Let me elaborate a little about why I think this applies.

The GGP says that the idea that "research or strong points are not necessary"
makes him sad. Joel is saying that one of his realizations is that writing
does not need to be about compelling and unassailable logic, but can also be
about communicating his personal experiences and emotions.

In other words, he prefers to be understood rather than satisfying the
pedantic readers in his audience. I think this is the correct choice: being
understood means that his emotions and experiences are related in such a way
that the reader can emphasize with him; being correct means simply passing a
mechanical examination of his logical structure.

At the end of the day, most people side with you because they empathize with
you or because you stir their own emotions, not because you satisfy a system
of equations.

~~~
smacktoward
There is surely a continuum between "unassailable logic" and "no research,"
no?

I've just read waaay too many blog posts (and tweets, and statuses, et al)
making assertions that even the briefest, most cursory amount of research by
the author would have proven incorrect, or at least more complicated than they
seem at first glance. Like, a single Google search, you know? When I find a
piece of writing where the author went to the trouble to put in that effort,
it automatically goes up in my estimation a few notches.

I take Nietzsche's words about "knowing and over-acute readers" not as a call
to not research your subject, but rather to write about it in a way that's
accessible to the broad public rather than to experts on the topic. Good
writers take complicated subjects and make them seem simple.

------
fghh45sdfhr3
This is hilarious.

