Rory Marinich: Make Great Shit(journal.rinich.com)
journal.rinich.com
Rory Marinich: Make Great Shit
http://journal.rinich.com/post/216821123/make-great-shit
3 comments
If you haven't read it, I'll save you the time: "Shit shit shit shit shit shit shit." (There is as much value in that one sentence as there is in this guy's entire rambling blog post.)
Let me offer a different summary:
The greatest satisfaction to a hacker is to produce output that gives the hacker pleasure to look at, think about, and use.
Achieving this satisfaction is an iterative hill climbing optimization. Each iteration depends on making something. By making lots of shit (there's that word), you get to see what output gives you satisfaction; and you feel some satisfaction, which gives you the energy to make more. Notice what you made that gives you pleasure, and how you made it. Repeat until you are a satisfied Hacker.
(I agree that the word got so overused I couldn't parse the writing very well -- like if you say the word 'apple' 100 times, you start to forget what it means -- or like the way if you eliminate microsaccades, foveated objects start to disappear [1].)
[1] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16423702
The greatest satisfaction to a hacker is to produce output that gives the hacker pleasure to look at, think about, and use.
Achieving this satisfaction is an iterative hill climbing optimization. Each iteration depends on making something. By making lots of shit (there's that word), you get to see what output gives you satisfaction; and you feel some satisfaction, which gives you the energy to make more. Notice what you made that gives you pleasure, and how you made it. Repeat until you are a satisfied Hacker.
(I agree that the word got so overused I couldn't parse the writing very well -- like if you say the word 'apple' 100 times, you start to forget what it means -- or like the way if you eliminate microsaccades, foveated objects start to disappear [1].)
[1] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16423702
If you're going to criticize what I write, please criticize it rather than just snarking.
You deserve the criticism. You didn't "unintentionally" introduce the word many times into your essay. You thought it would be a good idea and banged the reader over the head with it.
"Remind yourself always that your shit is relative. Find ways to expand your definition of shit as much as possible. That way, the first step you take in making your shit will alone surpass the completed shit of the inexperienced."
You can't make that point without using the word "shit" three times? I'm sure it can be better in a dozen ways without ever using the word shit, but you overused "shit" again to keep your theme going.
That is why the original poster is not being snarky. The post literally reads as shit shit shit shit shit, how many times can I say shit in one blog post. The point you are trying to make is completely lost in that.
edit: When you start blaming the reader for comprehension problems, you have failed as communicating. Although I'll keep in mind that you just wrote "it it" and "people're" right after talking about "flows naturally".
"Remind yourself always that your shit is relative. Find ways to expand your definition of shit as much as possible. That way, the first step you take in making your shit will alone surpass the completed shit of the inexperienced."
You can't make that point without using the word "shit" three times? I'm sure it can be better in a dozen ways without ever using the word shit, but you overused "shit" again to keep your theme going.
That is why the original poster is not being snarky. The post literally reads as shit shit shit shit shit, how many times can I say shit in one blog post. The point you are trying to make is completely lost in that.
edit: When you start blaming the reader for comprehension problems, you have failed as communicating. Although I'll keep in mind that you just wrote "it it" and "people're" right after talking about "flows naturally".
What can I say? I must read differently than the people here. When I read it it flows naturally; this has been in circulation long enough that I see lots of other people're okay with the style also.
Perhaps it's that I don't skim when I read: I actually digest the words being used. Read aloud, it really doesn't sound like the word is used too much; skimmed, it's all that stands out.
Perhaps it's that I don't skim when I read: I actually digest the words being used. Read aloud, it really doesn't sound like the word is used too much; skimmed, it's all that stands out.
You used the word "shit" 105 times in one post. At that saturation point, the only takeaway I got was "This guy sure likes to say 'shit.'"
When I originally wrote the article, I was using the word stuff — but stuff is such a boring word. It's got a lag to it. Ditto other options, like things and work and product. Shit, on the other hand, is a very pointed, quick word. It serves perfectly as a placeholder for "anything else", which is what I'm really talking about.
This isn't about writing good code, or good music, or making good music. It's about making anything. The technique is the same regardless of whether you're making a lesson plan or a DIY desk.
I mean, it's not like I didn't know I was writing the word "shit". Usually I don't write any swears into my posts. This one, that one word was the point.
This isn't about writing good code, or good music, or making good music. It's about making anything. The technique is the same regardless of whether you're making a lesson plan or a DIY desk.
I mean, it's not like I didn't know I was writing the word "shit". Usually I don't write any swears into my posts. This one, that one word was the point.
I'm just letting you know that your point becomes shrouded by the repetition of a single word. If the entire point was that one word, then mission accomplished, because it's the only thing I'm going to remember about it.
I get what you're saying. I'm disappointed if that's all you got out of it.
I'm not much of a writer, but if I spot that I'm using the same word twice within two sentences of each other I'll try to find a suitable alternative.
The reason for that is simple, this is not my first language and I find that if I'm not very careful I get caught up in my somewhat limited vocabulary. In dutch that problem would normally not hit me.
If you write a piece like this and you have a point to make then it is a real pity that your choice of words gets in the way of getting the point across.
There was this article a little while ago about 'shit my dad says', and you commented there that you thought it was excellent stuff. But it is the diametrical opposite of the way you write, he makes his point in one sentence, which may be coarse and rough around the edges, he may even use a swear word (or two), but it does not get in the way of the delivery.
I swear I tried to read your piece, but after reading roughly a screenfull I simply gave up.
That can't have been your intention (or maybe it was).
The criticism here is too harsh I think, you probably have a valid point to make but if it got lost than that's a waste.
The reason for that is simple, this is not my first language and I find that if I'm not very careful I get caught up in my somewhat limited vocabulary. In dutch that problem would normally not hit me.
If you write a piece like this and you have a point to make then it is a real pity that your choice of words gets in the way of getting the point across.
There was this article a little while ago about 'shit my dad says', and you commented there that you thought it was excellent stuff. But it is the diametrical opposite of the way you write, he makes his point in one sentence, which may be coarse and rough around the edges, he may even use a swear word (or two), but it does not get in the way of the delivery.
I swear I tried to read your piece, but after reading roughly a screenfull I simply gave up.
That can't have been your intention (or maybe it was).
The criticism here is too harsh I think, you probably have a valid point to make but if it got lost than that's a waste.
Fair enough. I'm not enough of a prick to think that my opinion overrides everybody else's. I don't think I was going to write another super-swear piece, but now I certainly won't.
Oh, well. It's one piece. I can handle people not liking it.
(As an aside: I never suspected English wasn't your first language! That comes as a bit of a shock.)
Oh, well. It's one piece. I can handle people not liking it.
(As an aside: I never suspected English wasn't your first language! That comes as a bit of a shock.)
I'm still kind of interested in what it was you were trying to say though, maybe I'll re-try later on :)
> (As an aside: I never suspected English wasn't your first language! That comes as a bit of a shock.)
Why would that shock you ? It's true and there isn't a day that I don't learn something new about English. I also am quite dependent on my spell checker to keep me on the straight and narrow. And I can't seem to decide on English or American spelling, that's quite messy.
> (As an aside: I never suspected English wasn't your first language! That comes as a bit of a shock.)
Why would that shock you ? It's true and there isn't a day that I don't learn something new about English. I also am quite dependent on my spell checker to keep me on the straight and narrow. And I can't seem to decide on English or American spelling, that's quite messy.
> Why would that shock you ? It's true and there isn't a day that I don't learn something new about English. I also am quite dependent on my spell checker to keep me on the straight and narrow. And I can't seem to decide on English or American spelling, that's quite messy.
Mainly because I've been having conversations with you for a year, and you always state yourself so eloquently.
Mainly because I've been having conversations with you for a year, and you always state yourself so eloquently.
That's funny, I'm actually really frustrated by the inability to edit HN comments after a set time because I usually spot my errors only after that time has passed.
Thanks for the compliment though :), but if you look a little harder I'm sure you'll find plenty of mistakes.
Thanks for the compliment though :), but if you look a little harder I'm sure you'll find plenty of mistakes.
When I originally wrote the article, I was using the word stuff — but stuff is such a boring word. It's got a lag to it. Ditto other options, like things and work and product. Shit, on the other hand, is a very pointed, quick word.
There is no generic word, offensive or not, worth repeating one hundred times in a short essay.
There is no generic word, offensive or not, worth repeating one hundred times in a short essay.
Exactly. "Shit" doesn't offend me as word. Trying to find the authors point through the mindless repetition of any word is a chore. If "Shit" was replaced with "Stuff" it would still be a horrendous post.
Example:
"That doesn’t mean the [stuff] you don’t get isn’t great, and it doesn’t make you less of a [stuff]maker not to get it. Just know that if you don’t get [stuff], you’ve still got something to learn, and that oftentimes it’s worth taking time to find somebody enthusiastic enough about [stuff] to explain what about it he’s into. (This is called teaching. As a kid you were taught that teaching had to do with seating assignments, but that was wrong. Teaching is knowing enough about [stuff] both to like it and to make other people like it.)"
If you use "is", "good", "stuff", or "things" more often than once per paragraph, you are not communicating clearly. That is true whether you use the word intentionally or not. Since you used it so often intentionally it means you forced the word into places where there are better words that could have been used, detracting even further.
Swearing doesn't instantly lead to good writing, it almost always leads to bad writing.
And to say that since you are making a general point you must use general words a fallacy. You can be quite specific in word choice while still making a general point.
Example:
"That doesn’t mean the [stuff] you don’t get isn’t great, and it doesn’t make you less of a [stuff]maker not to get it. Just know that if you don’t get [stuff], you’ve still got something to learn, and that oftentimes it’s worth taking time to find somebody enthusiastic enough about [stuff] to explain what about it he’s into. (This is called teaching. As a kid you were taught that teaching had to do with seating assignments, but that was wrong. Teaching is knowing enough about [stuff] both to like it and to make other people like it.)"
If you use "is", "good", "stuff", or "things" more often than once per paragraph, you are not communicating clearly. That is true whether you use the word intentionally or not. Since you used it so often intentionally it means you forced the word into places where there are better words that could have been used, detracting even further.
Swearing doesn't instantly lead to good writing, it almost always leads to bad writing.
And to say that since you are making a general point you must use general words a fallacy. You can be quite specific in word choice while still making a general point.
Isn't that exactly what I said? I wrote originally with stuff and decided it didn't work. I pared it down and switched the word and it worked.
> If you use "is", "good", "stuff", or "things" more often than once per paragraph, you are not communicating clearly.
Right, if that's happening unintentionally. I'm baffled by the assumption that I just accidentally wrote the word shit a hundred times. It's not like I think swearing leads instantly to good writing.
In this case, though, the central point of the post is that we're not talking about a guide to doing X/Y/Z. This is something that's applicable for virtually everything. The repetition is intended to drive that point.
> If you use "is", "good", "stuff", or "things" more often than once per paragraph, you are not communicating clearly.
Right, if that's happening unintentionally. I'm baffled by the assumption that I just accidentally wrote the word shit a hundred times. It's not like I think swearing leads instantly to good writing.
In this case, though, the central point of the post is that we're not talking about a guide to doing X/Y/Z. This is something that's applicable for virtually everything. The repetition is intended to drive that point.
It was used once for every sixteen words. That means it was used less than once a sentence. If I was unintentionally saturating the essay, I'd agree with you that my style needs some fixing, but it was a deliberate choice and it wasn't overdone for what it aimed to be.
Obviously we're going to disagree over whether it was overdone. That's subjective. I've seen a lot of positive response to this and surprisingly little negative. I'm fine with the response I'm getting overall.
As for offensive: It's the word "shit". I'm not using it in an offensive way. I didn't write "How to shit great". I used it as a generic placeholder. Is it offensive just because it's a swear word? Because here I thought we were more mature than to get prissy over naughty language, particularly when it's not attempting to evoke naughty imagery.
Obviously we're going to disagree over whether it was overdone. That's subjective. I've seen a lot of positive response to this and surprisingly little negative. I'm fine with the response I'm getting overall.
As for offensive: It's the word "shit". I'm not using it in an offensive way. I didn't write "How to shit great". I used it as a generic placeholder. Is it offensive just because it's a swear word? Because here I thought we were more mature than to get prissy over naughty language, particularly when it's not attempting to evoke naughty imagery.
If you wanted to emphasize the message instead of your stylistic means, you could have lessened the obtrusiveness of your style. By not doing so, I think you are rightfully criticized for style, when it should have been about the message.
I'm fine with being criticized — best way to learn to do better. I just resented the suggestions that I didn't know what I was doing. If I deliberately fuck up, I'll take my punches, but the comments implying I somehow accidentally used "shit" that many times kind of irritated me.
[deleted]
[deleted]
[deleted](1)
Read: "Rory Marinich: Look How Alternative And Modern I Am, I Know Cuss Words"
That's cute, coming from somebody so edgy he quotes Banksy in his profile.
But honestly, noticeable articles are noticeable for their noticeable ideas, not noticeable words. Noticeable words backfire, turning people off.
Fair point about Banksy, though.
Fair point about Banksy, though.
This wasn't a good Hacker News article. It wasn't written to be. I've actually got one in the works now that I was going to submit here this week; this was geared towards my usual reader constituency of artsier types.
That comment here was the first time in a week and a half I've seen anybody comment on the word "shit", actually. When I wrote it I expected that might be a turn-off; I guess after it caught on in the blogosphere I got used to people treating it like it wasn't overdosing on the word.
That comment here was the first time in a week and a half I've seen anybody comment on the word "shit", actually. When I wrote it I expected that might be a turn-off; I guess after it caught on in the blogosphere I got used to people treating it like it wasn't overdosing on the word.
That advice was some good shit, maybe great shit.