This is good advice, but I disagree with his example. The entire paragraph reads[0]:
>The Upper Palaeolithic cave art of Europe was a tradition that lasted for perhaps 20,000 years and it will always be rightly described as primitive. But it is upon those anonymous artists' shoulders — giants' shoulders — that later masters like Picasso were able to stand. The mercurial Spaniard himself declared: 'After Altamira, all is decadence.'
Sure, for maximum clarity, Neil Oliver could have written more like he talks. But this paragraph is clear enough and written in an appealing style. It might not be Paul Graham's favorite style, but that doesn't make it bad writing.
I also think the sentence he picked is particularly unconversational, which is misleading for two reasons. One, it makes Oliver's style sound more opaque and formal than it actually is. Two, even in a more conversational style than Oliver's, you're occasionally going to include something that's a step more formal.
I think Graham knows this, albeit unconsciously. Would he really say "Informal language is the athletic clothing of ideas" in a conversation? Probably not, but it reasonably passed his read aloud test because it's a good distillation of his point.
I actually like this a lot. He uses a conversational/informal style and it almost flows like a rehearsed piece of conversation:
> it will always be rightly described as primitive.
> . But it is upon those anonymous artists' shoulders — giants' shoulders — that
He starts a sentence with But and puts dashes in for pause effects. Does he go a bit purply in his prose towards the end? Sure. I think that is the difference between writing and conversation though. You can write well, explain your points and have a simple flow using the a comfortable tone. e.g. not forcing absurd 10cent works into your works and being unnecessarily complex. However, you can use a sentence structure like:
> The mercurial Spaniard himself declared: 'After Altamira, all is decadence.'
For dramatic effect. Author departs from his clean flow to qoute somebody who speaks differently than himself. And it looks like the mercurial spanaird talks funny which is underscored by the authors' change in tone.
Besides, the author probably talks like that in real life, too, so he's already doing what PG says he should do. When you study ancient stuff a lot, it becomes part of your personality. You acquire a lot of choice quotes that over time become part of your everyday vocabulary.
I love it when historians mix archaic language into their everyday speech for dramatic effect! It's vastly different from when ordinary people clumsily try their hand at archaism. Coming from someone who actually knows what they're saying, it feels so much more authentic and appropriate.
I agree with your analysis of the first sentence, but the second still sounds awful and stilted to me! I'd rewrite as:
> >The Upper Paleolithic cave art of Europe was a tradition that lasted for perhaps 20,000 years and it will always be rightly described as primitive. But it is upon those anonymous artists' shoulders — giants' shoulders — that later masters were able to stand. Picasso himself declared: 'After Altamira, all is decadence.'
What's the point of "mercurial" or "Spaniard" being included? Irrelevant detail that, frankly, trips my tongue up when reading (and when my tongue trips, I stumble slightly even while silently reading).
Thanks for providing the full context. I'm a bit surprise pg would pick a rather flimsy example. Fishing for flamboyant prose? Why not pick on a tabloid.
There's a ton of implicit communication that happens in-person that is hard or impossible to duplicate in writing, even through prose. Prose serves a purpose, and I'm surprised this essay doesn't grapple with that issue.
I think what pg really meant to write is something more like: be clear, get to the point, and be authentic. If the only way to do that were to write in a conversational tone, I think we'd quickly become bored and disinterested in writing itself.
>The Upper Palaeolithic cave art of Europe was a tradition that lasted for perhaps 20,000 years and it will always be rightly described as primitive. But it is upon those anonymous artists' shoulders — giants' shoulders — that later masters like Picasso were able to stand. The mercurial Spaniard himself declared: 'After Altamira, all is decadence.'
Sure, for maximum clarity, Neil Oliver could have written more like he talks. But this paragraph is clear enough and written in an appealing style. It might not be Paul Graham's favorite style, but that doesn't make it bad writing.
I also think the sentence he picked is particularly unconversational, which is misleading for two reasons. One, it makes Oliver's style sound more opaque and formal than it actually is. Two, even in a more conversational style than Oliver's, you're occasionally going to include something that's a step more formal.
I think Graham knows this, albeit unconsciously. Would he really say "Informal language is the athletic clothing of ideas" in a conversation? Probably not, but it reasonably passed his read aloud test because it's a good distillation of his point.
[0]: https://books.google.com/books?id=1Uk0AgAAQBAJ&printsec=fron...