
The Most Important Writing Lesson I Ever Learned - sage_joch
http://www.stevenpressfield.com/2009/10/writing-wednesdays-2-the-most-important-writing-lession-i-ever-learned/
======
ajankovic
I was actually very touched by the quote left in the comments and it's worth
mentioning it here:

 _A pro views her work as craft not art. Not because she believes art is
devoid of mystical dimension. On the contrary. She understands that all
creative endeavor is holy, but she doesn’t dwell on it. She knows if she
thinks about that too much it will paralyze her. So she concentrates on
technique. The professional masters how, and leaves what and why to the gods.
Like Somerset Maugham she doesn’t wait for inspiration she acts in
anticipation of its apparition. The professional is acutely aware of the
intangibles that go into inspiration. Out of respect for them she lets them
work. She grants them their sphere while she concentrates on hers.

The sign of the amateur is the overglorification of, and preoccupation with,
the mystery.

The professional shuts up. She doesn’t talk about it. She does her work._

------
sage_joch
I know there is no shortage of one-line advice here, but this one has always
stuck with me. And since it usually takes time and hindsight to distinguish
the quality advice from the short-lived transient whims of a bored blogger, I
thought I'd resubmit this.

~~~
robbiea
love it. It's my first time reading it. Thanks for posting it. I think I'm
going to send it to a few people or even write about it myself.

~~~
sdqali
Do you think someone would want to read that? :-)

------
mehulkar
_A startup is never competing with other products. It’s competing with nobody
giving a shit._ -Michael Staton

It's not like I didn't already know this, but this one-liner has stuck with me
for a few months now.

~~~
thenomad
That's brilliant. Stealing that _bon mot_. It's applicable in so many
situations.

( To take just one - "Your YouTube series is not competing with other series.
It's competing with nobody giving a shit." )

~~~
ten_fingers
Another explanation: The problem with a YouTube series is connecting the
people who would like the series with the series.

My view is that this problem holds for about 2/3rds of the content now on the
Internet and is getting much worse rapidly.

My work is to do something about that.

~~~
thenomad
That's also very true. Particularly for something like a series which doesn't
have an easily accessed niche, it's a major problem.

(I make videos on the Web for a living, and it's certainly been a problem for
my company before now.)

What's your work? I'd be interested to hear about that.

~~~
ten_fingers
Thanks for your interest.

I'm taking an approach that is fairly general, e.g., for that 2/3rds, and
where solving the problem for video clips is just another application.

Roughly, first-cut, my work looks like a new Internet 'search engine', but
that has to be only a rough description. That is, while 'search engine' may be
the best two word description among widely understood two word descriptions, I
don't think that much like a usual search engine can solve the problem. I
believe that a solution needs to be a combination of search, discovery,
recommendation, curation, and subscription!!!! How 'bout that!

Then there's another point, well connected with your "niche": Trying to
provide what is 'most popular' is not promising! I.e., something in a niche is
almost by definition not very popular. Or, what is in a niche is in 'the long
tail'!

My guess is that we are moving to much more 'specialization' in content so
that the fraction of the total content in the long tail and the niches is
becoming a much more significant fraction of the total content. So, my 'search
engine' is to help people mine this new fraction, the long tail.

How to do that? Well with the problem described, a key concept becomes
obvious: Some case of strong 'personalization'!! That is, somehow have to get
the user more involved so that the user can better indicate what they want and
so that the search engine can, in some useful sense, 'learn' about what the
user wants.

I've got the crucial, core, unique 'secret sauce' programmed and now am
finishing up the routine parts of, really, just routine, simple Web site
construction. And except for the crucial core stuff already done, it's a quite
simple Web site. But the routine Web site work has taken me far too long --
those 3000 Web pages of Microsoft documentation of just routine parts of .NET
really slowed me down.

Today I'm trying to finish up some work on just a simple session state store:
I didn't like what Microsoft offered in ASP.NET, found a bug I wanted to get
far away from in part of what they had, so did my own handling of session ID
and session state with my own, simple session state store. But my session
state store is via TCP/IP in my server farm, and I also need TCP/IP inside my
server farm to connect my Web pages to my secret sauce servers. For using
TCP/IP, have to build a 'message' service on top of the TCP/IP 'stream'
service, so I did that and have used the session state store work to test it.

Then write the rest of the Web pages, load some initial data, and go live.

------
petercooper
Discussed on HN at length before: <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=850857>
(with a cute 'Hacker's Corollary' from edw519)

------
Gustomaximus
As a marketeer one of my rules of advertising is to ask myself am I giving
something to my audience. I see to many ads that are based on what the
advertiser wants only. To give something can be a prize, a laugh or an
interesting fact etc. There are no limits or rules here. But I want them to
leave my ad having gained something from their POV. IMO this makes the best
advertising and is a good healthcheck point when you review your ads.

------
skrebbel
This is tyical advertisers' bullshit. It assumes that all people are sheep.

The line of advice should've been "Nobody wants to read your shit _if you're
trying to sell them something_ ". And even then it would've been half off
imho, but I can't come up with anything better.

Some of the highest voted articles HN don't follow _any_ of the detail advice
in this article. But they're popular anyway, because they're _interesting_.
Somebody made something cool, and people want to know how he/she did it. Sure,
these only work in niches. When you go mainstream, the only articles that get
read by many are "10 ways of getting your partner to gave sex with you more
often".

But hey, this is an advertiser. What does he know about niches? More yet, what
does he know about people who are _actually_ , _genuinely_ interested in a
whole range of topics, and would happily spend 30+ minutes reading a single
article?

Of course, any article an benefit from being fun and concise. But that's just
bonus, no prerequisite.

Because if you've got something interesting to tell, _people want to read your
shit_.

~~~
theorique
_The line of advice should've been "Nobody wants to read your shit if you're
trying to sell them something"._

But a writer's _always_ trying to sell the reader something, even if it's only
the next line of text, and then the next. In the bigger picture, a writer's
selling knowledge, or a point of view, or entertainment.

'Interesting' is a side effect of being considerate to your reader, which is
exactly the point of the OP.

~~~
SCdF
Depends on your definition of sell I suppose. By that logic all of our
interactions with people are 'selling' to them. When my boss asks me how many
hours I've got left I'm 'selling' the 12hrs I need. When I hold open a door
for an old lady I'm 'selling' that I care about old people. When I notice my
SO is down because of family issues and I make her a nice dinner, I'm
'selling' that I'm a nice guy.

You can certainly frame life that way, but it doesn't feel very nice, to me
anyway.

~~~
theorique
Yeah, it's one way to interpret things - not necessarily right or wrong.

In a sense, we, ourselves, are the biggest targets of our selling efforts -
for example, taking certain actions that are consistent with our self-image
while avoiding actions that contradict it - in an effort to maintain a
perception of our "self" as a consistent entity with consistent values over
time.

------
mcav
It'd be great if the editors wouldn't feel the need to change the title to
every submission here.

------
sanswork
Other people can better comment on the main theme of this article(which I
thought was a great read btw). The point at the start about your first job
bending the twig made me think about my own progression. At first I thought
"Thats so wrong, I went from Big 5(IT consulting) to Big 4(Accounting) to the
startup world". Then I realized that he was right and my experiences at those
massive companies is what drove me to where I am today. So to any planning the
start of their career, read it, believe it but don't confuse it with saying
where you start is where you will stay. Where you start will just help you
decide where you want to be.

------
officemonkey
His book "The War of Art" is one of the best "self-help" for creative people
I've read.

If you're struggling to be a creative person, it will help. I think it's
better than "The Artist's Way." There's certainly less nonsense.

------
ggchappell
A very good point, but -- ironically -- not very clearly stated.

Indeed, most HN commenters seem to think that this piece is about advertising.
_It is not._ True, that is the primary example used, but later he talks about
writing novels.

The point (as I understood it) is this: give value to your readers. No one
wants to read something just because you wrote it. They want to read it
because they get something out of it: fun, information, etc. And brevity &
clarity mean your reader has to work less to get the value.

~~~
mcguire
Steven Pressfield: <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steven_Pressfield>

_The Legend of Bagger Vance_ , _The Afghan Campaign_ , etc.

------
sicxu
love this piece. thanks for posting it. it reminds me one of the talk by Jobs:
<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dR-ZT8mhfJ4>

------
b1daly
This being Hacker News there are of course some apparently well reasoned
dissents from the OP point. It strikes me as the stone cold truth. "Nobody
wants to read your shit." That's just how it is as a default state. He's
obviously suggesting some paths out of the dilemma.

------
bksenior
I too have spent my non-self employed days of work in the ad game and couldn't
agree more. The concept of always"adding value" that has become so parroted in
the good circles of the start-up space are relatively ignored in the ad space.

In the old days just creating something "cool" was considered enough value add
because the information volume allowed for time for people to focus and decide
how that "cool" gave them value. No Mas! If in a few seconds the viewer/user
can't own, share, brag, stop and think about or act on what you create, than
it is a waste of time.

------
larrydag
If you have never read any of Pressfield's work than you are in for a treat.
Gates of Fire is one of my all time favorite books. He even knows how to craft
words from a secondary language (Greek).

------
btipling
Hence: <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex_in_advertising>

~~~
TazeTSchnitzel
And hence GoDaddy's superbowl ads.

------
Dn_Ab
Does anyone know how his squares with Long copy marketing which often violates
both (well 2 is subjective verging on tautology) his requirements?

Write short when trying to capture those deciding on throwaways, write long
when trying to convince or swindle erm assuage the uncertain?

------
dbecker
Why does this article about begin concise, because no one gives a shit, start
with two paragraphs of biography... which I really couldn't give a shit about.

He had a good point, but I almost gave up before getting there.

------
plinio
So advertisement is evil (it is) but you should start a career in it anyway,
because...?

I find it disgusting when advertisers talk to each other in this way,
masquerading their profession of dishonesty as something creative, in the same
level as an actual writer, an artist. Fuck these people, fuck all of them, the
world would be a much better place if they all went out of jobs.

------
ten_fingers
The main claim is:

"No one wants to read your shit".

Let's check that: I came to Hacker News to read. I saw the post and read it. I
read the Hacker News comments.

Today before Hacker News I read CNet. Later I will read Google News and a few
more.

I may stop at TED to see if they have some new content.

For the Romney-Paul speeches in Virginia yesterday, I worked to find,
download, save, and index copies, and I read the copies.

So, net, I very much do want to "read". I work hard to find things I want to
read.

The flat claim that I don't want to read is just nonsense.

But the statement was about advertising. Okay. Do I ever want to read ads?
Actually, yes, very much yes.

When I buy products, I very much want to read about the products. E.g., a
friend urged me to buy the book 'The Amateur', so this morning I went to
Amazon and read a few dozen of the highest ranked comments about that book. I
very much wanted to read.

Two weeks ago the power supply on my main desktop computer started making
noise each morning when I turned the computer on. So I spent about a full day
reading about power supplies and, maybe, how to replace the fans in the power
supply I have. Finally I ordered a spare power supply in case I need it.

I did read. I read a lot of 'ad' content. I read about everything I could find
relevant to my power supply issue. And I regarded what I read as important
enough to keep copies of most of it.

So, yes, I do want to read ad copy also.

But, right: The usual ads I don't want to read. Why? Well, with some irony,
the author did say a little about why -- the ads are "shit".

Okay, let's take such an ad, say, for a new car. I've seen and read hours
beyond belief of ads for new cars, am really eager to learn about new cars,
but to me nearly every ad I've read about new cars is just the author's
"shit". That is, the ad writers, apparently following what the author said,
just will not, Not, NOT tell me what I want to know about the new cars. They
just have their feet locked solidly in concrete, will NOT tell me, and, thus,
will write "shit" that, yes, I don't want to read.

So, why the "shit"? Apparently because the ad writers, and the author, just do
NOT understand what a customer might want to know.

What do I want to know?

"All new"? That's nearly always a lie. Good. No way would I buy a car that
really was "all new". Instead, I want every essential mechanical part and
every important system to have been on the road in hundreds of thousands of
instances for at least five years. So, say "all new" and right away I hope and
believe that you are lying. So, now that I know you are lying or are being a
fool, I am reluctant to take any of the rest seriously.

Headlights: The cars have headlights apparently from 'designers' to yield an
emotional experience of 'flowing' into the sheet metal. BS. I deeply,
profoundly, bitterly hate and despise all such constructions and intentions.
Why? Because such headlights have some "shit" engineering issues. E.g., it's
not clear how to aim them. E.g., there is a plastic cover the is easily
scratched and starts to go yellow or gray or whatever due to UV or whatever.

What I want in headlights are traditional, old, very reliable, very
functional, industry standard, widely available, competitively priced, very
well engineered and tested sealed beam units enclosed in glass. NO PLASTIC.
Period.

Next, here's what I really do care about in cars: Utility, functionality,
performance, reliability, ruggedness, and ease of maintenance.

E.g., for ruggedness, I want traditional heavy steel bumpers that protrude
several inches from the rest of the car. I want no glass or plastic near the
bumpers. The bumpers need to be able to take heavy bumps without damage. And I
should be able easily to unbolt a bumper and replace it.

So in an ad, I'd want to know how rugged, strong, durable, and easily
replaceable the bumpers were. I've yet to see an ad that gives any information
at all on bumpers. Bummer.

For the dashboard, I want to know how to remove it, repair or replace various
components, e.g., bulbs, the speedometer, the tachometer, the connection from
the radio to the antenna, all EASILY. Ads don't provide me with any such
information. Bummer. This matter of the dashboard is just a routine part of
ease of maintenance.

Far and away my greatest concern about the car is corrosion -- e.g., around
the front and rear windows, the body panels, from condensation inside the car,
of the exhaust and the radiator, of the brake parts, of the fuel lines and
brake lines, of the gas tank, of the floor of the trunk, of the wheel rims
where the tire bead joins and needs to make an air tight seal, etc. I want to
know what has been done about corrosion.

Okay, let's set cars aside and consider, say, desktop computers. I need to
build another one. So, I want details on the motherboard, power supply,
processor, processor fan, case, case fans, how hard disks are mounted in the
case, hard disks, DVD, etc.

But, of course, the ad copy for these products is from feet locked in concrete
writing me "shit" and just refusing to give me the information I need. E.g.,
it's standard now to paint the case all black; this is some Darth Vader thing?
With a black case the photographs become just big, black blobs with no visible
detail. With such a case, I will always need strong lights just to see what is
inside the case. I deeply, profoundly, bitterly hate and despise all the
dysfunctional, destructive 'stylistic' nonsense that has given us black cases.
Upchuck.

Here's the fundamental problem with ad writers: They are convinced, down to
the center of the cells at the center of their bone marrow, that all there is
in life, writing, ad copy, and cognition is some humanities zenith of
vicarious, escapist, fantasy, emotional experience entertainment. 100% emotion
100% of the time. Solid, rational, meaningful, useful information never. And
that's why it's "shit" and why I don't want to read it.

~~~
redcircle
Your reply couldn't have been a better demonstration of the author's point.
When I noticed the length of your reply, and its tone, I stopped reading it. I
have limited time, and I could tell that you weren't considering the
audience's limited time (although normally I give major leeway towards
comments, which are written on the spur of the moment). There are so many
other good things on the Internet that I could read, and there are so many
things that I want to write. I just don't have time to put up with reading
other people's shit.

~~~
charlieflowers
Redcircle, you made me want a "plus 20" button.

The main point is the humans tend to start out with a delusion -- that other
people will automatically be as excited about your "stuff" as you are.

They won't. And it takes a surprisingly long time for that truth to sink in
and replace the delusion.

To me that's some damn good insight. But if you're going to argue against it,
at least argue against the main point. And please try to be concise!

