HN Books @HNBooksMonth

One useful first step in becoming a better writer - in particular if your subject is complex - is to to delete your Twitter account and never look at another Twitter thread. Character limits kill creativity and complexity.

The presentation does leave out one very necessary requirement for becoming a good-to-great writer: you have to do a lot of reading. If you're going to write about a complex scientific or technical subject, you should have some examples in mind of great texts that you've read. What did other writers do that you liked or that stuck with you? Equally true, what are some really bad examples, some things to avoid?

For example, here's what I think is an excellent popular history book, and if I ever wrote something with a historical bent, I'd flip though it first: "By Steppe, Desert, and Ocean: The Birth of Eurasia" by Barry Cunliffe

https://www.amazon.com/Steppe-Desert-Ocean-Birth-Eurasia/dp/...

The point about Twitter is really this: you have to develop the skill of composing a paragraph as a coherent entity in order to become a decent writer, and Twitter doesn't allow for paragraphs, just sentences (and short ones at that). Paragraphs should have an internal cohesion to help the reader absorb the concept being presented. Once you have that, you can start chaining paragraphs together, reordering the sequence of paragraphs, with the goal of constructing a path that the reader can follow through the whole essay or chapter. Getting the order right is important for complex topics, as point D might rely on a good understanding of points A and B, and so on. Your goal should be to make the reader feel smart.

Of course that's just advice for non-fiction writing; if you're doing fiction or poetry basically anything goes. The public might like it or hate it, but the literary critics can safely be ignored.

⬐ izzygonzalez

Limitations and bounds generally allow me to explore a smaller creative space without tangents. I think this is a generally accepted trope in creative domains.

There's also the fact that a swath of the world stopped reading after high school. If accessibility and reach are a goal of a piece of writing, Twitter sort of forces a writer to compress an idea and move on.

Who knows how many people I lost even with just this short comment. I guess it's about end goals.

⬐ zmmmmm

Twitter is an extreme example, but in general, learning to cut concepts down to the bone and write in short succinct sentences is a super useful skill to make your writing more comprehensible. For example:

Twitter is an extreme example. In general, however, it is important to learn to cut concepts down to the bone. Writing in short succinct sentences is a super useful skill. It improves your writing and makes it more comprehensible.

⬐ pc86

"Never look at another Twitter thread" is pretty great advice no matter what the question is.

⬐ erwincoumans

I disagree: I follow research scientists and software developers in topics of my interest. This way, Twitter feed keeps me up-to-date on useful information in topics I care for and I can exchange news and ideas with those people.

⬐ newbamboo

Twitter has a lot in common with writing poetry. I think it can be a good practice, depending on one’s goals. But I agree with your general point about reading a lot. I think it’s important to read a lot of different styles/genres: fiction, academic writing, journalism, old stuff, new stuff, translations, great literature in various languages, ad copy, so on. Most good writing is about conforming/mimicry and being especially considerate of the reader. Exceptional writing is a different thing. A lot of bad writing comes from regular people trying to write exceptionally. It’s hard to learn to write dumber, but thankfully the internet lets us all practice a bunch. Whether we like it or not, most people prefer Stephen king to Henry James or Proust.

⬐ akomtu

Many famous old books (bhagavatgita, etc.) look like a long list of tweets. Each "tweet" is well thought out and has multiple layers of meanings. Such books often have companion books with commentary, where each "tweet" is explained in many paragraphs of text. Those commentaries are written by very knowledgeable and respected people, who are, nevertheless, aren't wise enough (yet) to write those condensed "tweets".

⬐ kepler1

I agree very much. The whole document in the OP reads like someone who lost his Twitter account and is trying to communicate in PPT.

⬐ AlchemistCamp

> The presentation does leave out one very necessary requirement for becoming a good-to-great writer: you have to do a lot of reading.

I strongly agree. Based on my experience in my first profession, teaching school children throughout my 20s, I’d say that doing a lot of reading is more important than everything on these slides combined.

⬐ kranner

> Twitter doesn't allow for paragraphs, just sentences (and short ones at that). Paragraphs should have an internal cohesion to help the reader absorb the concept being presented. Once you have that, you can start chaining paragraphs together, reordering the sequence of paragraphs, with the goal of constructing a path that the reader can follow through the whole essay or chapter. Getting the order right is important for complex topics, as point D might rely on a good understanding of points A and B, and so on. Your goal should be to make the reader feel smart.

You are describing 'tweet threads' (formerly 'tweetstorms'). They are a popular format for long-form writing on Twitter.

⬐ scroot

Barry Cunliffe is a great scholar. Europe Between the Oceans is another great example.

⬐ chrisweekly

See also "First, You Write a Sentence" by Joe Moran.

⬐ gfodor

On the contrary, a person skilled at Twitter could have compressed the essence of what you wrote into 280 characters.

I’ve found the best books and essays are similarly compressible, with the rest of the information being about bolstering it as being worthy of the precious few slots in your L1 cache.

⬐ BurningFrog

"Brevity is the soul of wit", and saying what you have to say with as few and simple words as possible is essential for a good writer.

It is, however, far from the only important thing!

⬐ brian_cunnie

I agree: Twitter forces you to be succinct, a useful skill when writing an Executive Summary for a business paper or an Abstract for a paper in a scientific journal.

⬐ rfrey

The essence, perhaps... with none of the nuance or shading. If one thinks that is unnecessary, dispensable fluff, Twitter is no doubt sufficient for most writing.

And a rhyming dictionary contains all poetry in many fewer pages.

⬐ gfodor

I explicitly said that it’s necessary, but generally it’s not for the primary purpose of encoding the core point one is trying to make. Nuance to me is more about convincing the unpersuaded reader the idea has merit and is important or useful. Which is why Twitter allows reasonable idea propagation but does a terrible job of persuading people who disagree.

⬐ laszlojamf

Before twitter it was called aphorisms and Nietzsche was doing it before it was cool.

⬐ hammock

Does the master oil painter not start with charcoal pencil?

⬐ jolux

Nuance and shading is not entirely unselfish. Too much nuance indicates a lack of trust in your reader.

⬐ otterley

Given the nature and quality of replies I’ve seen even on HN — where there are no such character limits and the level of education its members have is higher on average — it seems to me that trust has yet to be earned.

⬐ jasonladuke0311

> The essence, perhaps... with none of the nuance or shading

Precisely why the worlds problems are all solvable on Twitter.

⬐ DocTomoe

Yep, I do remember the many problems Twitter solved. Without Twitter, we would be centuries away from enlightened world peace and mutual understanding.

I'm part-way through "By Steppe, Desert, and Ocean: The Birth of Eurasia" [0] and it does a fantastic job of illustrating the significance of markets in the ancient world. One tidbit that struck me as particularly interesting was that the appearance of the earliest civilizations in the near east demanded resources from other areas, notably the caucuses and beyond, which caused the emergence of more advanced civilizations in those regions as well--and similarly, when a given near-east civilization declined or collapsed, the satellite civilization declined or collapsed as well. In general, I'm always surprised that enormous markets existed before nation states, animal husbandry, before metallurgy, and even before agriculture itself. People were trading obsidian or other resources back into the stone age. I guess I always thought of widespread trade networks as a later development--something that depended upon (not preceded) the existence of agriculture, metallurgy, or nation states.

[0]: https://www.amazon.com/Steppe-Desert-Ocean-Birth-Eurasia/dp/...

⬐ thaumasiotes

> I'm always surprised that enormous markets existed before nation states, animal husbandry, before metallurgy, and even before agriculture itself. People were trading obsidian or other resources back into the stone age.

I don't think any of this is wrong, but it reads oddly -- agriculture is older than the Bronze Age too, making the second sentence much weaker than the first one.

⬐ FridayoLeary

You can't eat Bronze, so i would say agriculture is older...

⬐ thaumasiotes

You can't eat bronze, but you can eat without agriculture just fine. Agricultural species are vanishingly rare compared to foragers, though different kinds of ants are known to engage in both farming and ranching.

⬐ cosmojg

Did markets incentive the development of agriculture, or was its invention largely independent?

⬐ samatman

There is a great book which touches on this subject, Against the Grain: A Deep History of the Earliest States, by James C. Scott.

It overturns many of the latent assumptions about early history, particularly in Mesopotamia. It's well argued, I recommend it. I listened to the audiobook FYI.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Against_the_Grain:_A_Deep_Hist...

⬐ lmohseni

This book was particularly poignant to read during the early months of COVID, pandemics and viruses play an important role in his “Neolithic species resettlement camps”

⬐ gostsamo

Not the OP, but:

Agriculture is a technological invention, but its results are perishable and usually hard to transport. The idea of agriculture likely spred through already existing trade routes, but transporting food needed another technological advances to become reliable and profitable.

⬐ masklinn

> Agriculture is a technological invention, but its results are perishable and usually hard to transport.

The neolithic founder crops (rice, wheat, barley, flaxseed, various pulses) keep extremely well when whole or dried though.

⬐ gostsamo

If you keep them in a cool and dry place - yes. Like in your basement. Not so sure while being transported.

In addition, the difference in food prices should cover the price of transportation and the risk of far journeys.

⬐ throwaway894345

As an aside, from my very amateur understanding, agriculture’s propagation was a lot more an outward migration of agriculturalists than I had previously believed (as opposed to spreading agricultural ideas to hunters and gatherers). This seems to be supported by genetic evidence, which I don’t purport to understand. I heartily recommend “Ancestral Journeys: The Peopling of Europe from The First Adventurers to The Vikings” by Jean Manco.

⬐ AlotOfReading

This is only approximately true in parts of the middle east and mediterranean basin. It's very much not true in the rest of the world. Even in Europe, foragers and agriculturists lived in reasonably close proximity for thousands of years and yes, modern Europeans are related to both.

⬐ throwaway894345

This is presented as a rebuttal, but it seems to support my earlier comment that migration and cultural exchange (rather than the latter alone) accounted for the propagation of agrarianism.

⬐ akiselev

I'm curious why you assumed it was more due to cultural exchange?

I always assumed the reverse because agriculture increases surpluses that lead to more births, more specialization (which leads to improved warfare vs hunter gatherers), and more land pressure that forces outward migration. AFAIK most of the hunter gatherers didn't convert to farmers, but they were squeezed out by those that did because they grew much more slowly. I didn't think cultural exchange was a major factor until much later when large agricultural societies started to colonize and "modernize" the rest of the planet.

⬐ throwaway894345

Naïveté mostly. I didn’t understand how relatively rigid culture is and how change happens largely through displacement. E.g., farmers largely out-bred hunter-gatherers to produce a largely agrarian world, rather than cultural exchange.

⬐ pm90

Agriculture enabled the centralization of human populations, allowing for specializations and advances in crafting more durable goods (clothing, weapons, metal working etc.) which could then be traded, increasing the wealth of your settlement. Obviously you need to grow food to feed your populace before you can expand... and agriculture was the best way to do that.

It would be interesting to know though, if trade networks enabled the easy transfer of know-how and technology, so a settlement might make use of that to increase their productivity and such.

⬐ AlotOfReading

Many modern archaeologists don't draw a direct line between agriculture and sedentarism. It's mainly a feature studies in the middle east, and in particular southern mesopotamian societies. Excavations in these areas were influential in early narratives about the neolithic, but the idea that it's the only way urbanism occurs has become pretty archaic as our understanding of the rest of the world improves. For example, we now know that all the innovations you mention predate urban settlements.

Beyond that, the "why" of early urbanism is still fundamentally unclear. Some people, myself included, argue that there's no singular concrete reason that's universally applicable. Others take that a bit farther (e.g. Michael E. Smith) and argue that we need to invoke high level concepts of feedback loops and scaling laws to explain them. Regardless, there isn't a settled explanation in the literature.

⬐ tablespoon

> Did markets incentive the development of agriculture, or was its invention largely independent?

Obviously not. Most agriculture until very recently was of the subsistence variety. People want food to eat before they want trade goods.

⬐ dTal

But if you're already growing enough to survive on, the marginal effort to grow a whole lot more than that is not so big. And you probably already grow more than you need anyway, so that you don't starve in bad years. Seems to be that even subsistence agriculture will inevitably provoke some sort of economy, as long as other people are around.

⬐ tablespoon

> But if you're already growing enough to survive on, the marginal effort to grow a whole lot more than that is not so big.

You're forgetting that people like to have kids, and those kids like to eat, too.

> And you probably already grow more than you need anyway, so that you don't starve in bad years.

IIRC, this problem was usually solved by having good relationships with your neighbors so they'd help you when you had a bad year. There's whole host of reasons why individualist solutions probably didn't work: e.g. storing surplus food for long periods using pre-modern technology is not as easy as it may seem.

> Seems to be that even subsistence agriculture will inevitably provoke some sort of economy, as long as other people are around.

But not necessarily a market economy.

⬐ dTal

>good relationships with your neighbors so they'd help you when you had a bad year

Yes! that's exactly the point. That's an economy. You share your food with your neighbors when their harvest is bad, and vice versa. You also swap foods when you get bored. And the more people in your food-ring, the better it works, but also the more complex it becomes to keep track of, and eventually someone gets the bright idea to start writing it down, or swapping tokens...

⬐ analog31

We were taught in first grade (just to give credit where due) that a big enough food surplus allowed for specialization of labor. So it might not have stimulated trade directly, but enabled people to work on things that could be traded, such as artisan goods, smelted metals, and so forth.

⬐ Ekaros

My understanding is that most of the history there really wasn't whole lot more to grow. At least on marginal effort. Most of the history it was pretty tough and slim margins, at least outside certain areas.

⬐ throwaway894345

> But if you're already growing enough to survive on, the marginal effort to grow a whole lot more than that is not so big

I don't think this perspective squares well with the reality that starvation and malnutrition were realities for most people for most of history. I don't think it's just because they didn't think to do the extra bit of effort to generate a surplus. :)

> And you probably already grow more than you need anyway, so that you don't starve in bad years.

If you do grow enough to have such a reserve surplus, you don't trade that away or else you starve during the bad years. That surplus can only be either a reserve for hard times or currency for trade, but not both. If you want currency you have to have a surplus on top of your reserve.

> Seems to be that even subsistence agriculture will inevitably provoke some sort of economy, as long as other people are around.

"Subsistence" is kind of a confusing term because we use it in cases like feudal Europe where most people were subsisting because their surplus was being taken by their Lords. If you aren't generating a surplus at all, then you presumably don't get an agrarian economy (but you can still trade other things, like local minerals).

⬐ thaumasiotes

>> But if you're already growing enough to survive on, the marginal effort to grow a whole lot more than that is not so big

> I don't think this perspective squares well with the reality that starvation and malnutrition were realities for most people for most of history. I don't think it's just because they didn't think to do the extra bit of effort to generate a surplus.

There are different ways for something to be a reality of life. Starvation was a risk throughout history in a way that it isn't today. But it wasn't something that happened to people under normal circumstances. The historical norm involves paying a large portion of your crop as taxes. Starvation tends to happen to many people at once, due to bad weather or other inclement circumstances.

> If you do grow enough to have such a reserve surplus, you don't trade that away or else you starve during the bad years.

You do. You always grow enough to have a surplus. But you can't just sit on it indefinitely or it will rot. So you personally store enough for winter, part of your in-kind taxes go to fill public granaries (which need to be continually refreshed), and otherwise you attempt to dispose of any remaining surplus as you can, often by giving it away.

⬐ throwaway894345

Agriculture isn’t just one thing, but the earliest kind of agricultural innovation was wheat and it developed around the fertile crescent. The idea spread via migration and cultural exchange. Other agricultural innovations were developed elsewhere (cattle, horses, etc) and they spread via trade networks, conquest, etc. As an example, horse domestication (specifically for riding and traction as opposed to food) developed in the steppe region of eastern Europe and gave its discoverers an ability to manage bigger herds of sheep and cattle as well as to be more effective raiders and warriors. They were so much more effective at herding and warfare that they were able to spread their language over the Eurasian continent from the british isles to parts of China. Their language was proto indoeuropean and we’re pretty sure they are the same group archeologists identified as the Yamnaya or Pit Grave culture.

It’s also worth noting that agriculture likely developed independently in China and certainly in the Americas. People crab about it a lot, but Guns, Germs, and Steel covers the development and spread of agriculture and other technologies pretty well, and the controversy seems to be more about alleged subtext than the actual facts presented.

⬐ chewz

> agriculture likely developed independently in China and certainly in the Americas

and let do not forget New Guinea [1]

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Guinea#Early_history

⬐ masklinn

> the controversy seems to be more about alleged subtext than the actual facts presented.

It's not about subtext, it's about the actual text, namely GG&S's narrative, the thesis it purports to prove, and how it goes about doing that. GG&S is not an innocent list of facts and a recapitulation of historical events, if it were nobody would care about it.

In case you are actually interested in "the controversy", the /r/askhistorians FAQ has multiple comments on the subject: https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/wiki/historians_views...

⬐ throwaway894345

I think it's worth reading through those criticisms, but in general I think they validate my claim that "it's about subtext". For example, a popular criticism is that GG&S wrongly paints Native Americans as inferior, but I don't know how anyone can read the book and genuinely walk away with that impression considering that it is contradicted by the very explicitly stated and much repeated thesis. Other criticism seems to be philosophical and esoteric ("Like, what does it really mean to be 'conquered', man?") or otherwise pedantic.

I get the distinct feeling that much of the criticisms are ultimately rooted in political differences. I don't think Diamond intends to be controversial or political, but I suspect the GG&S thesis chafes with the political narratives that have come to, shall we say, 'conquer' the humanities. Anyway, I can't prove it, and I don't have any interest in debating it--just something to keep in mind for anyone who is digging into GG&S criticisms.

⬐ hyperpallium2

Matt Ridley in [1] argues that trade drove the evolution of human intelligence.

First he makes the interesting point that intelligence doesn't just evolve - it has to be for something; it must enhance survival or reproduction. So, what is intelligence good for?

He then argues how comparative advantage and division of labour is enormously beneficial. Also points to the pre-existing and unusual division of labour between men and women, as a starting point.

Now, once you have trade, you have all kinds of issues of accounting, cheating etc, which you do better at the cleverer you are - an additional driver for intelligence.

So, according to this theory, trade predates human intelligence.

[1] https://wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Origins_of_Virtue

⬐ samatman

This has an interesting tie to Nick Szabo's essays on "collectibles", which he paints as proto-money which coevolved with homo sapiens itself.

There's more to be found at his blog (http://unenumerated.blogspot.com), this essay in particular is a good introduction:

https://nakamotoinstitute.org/shelling-out/

⬐ CryptoPunk

Szabo speculates that proto-money could have increased the human carrying capacity of the environment by up to 10X. It's enlightening to see money in this context: as a fundamental driver of economic coordination that raises total production.