John Gruber interview
“A Mix of the Technical, the Artful, the Thoughtful, and the Absurd” is an interesting interview with the Daring Fireball writer.
Here Gruber talks about how it’s a challenge to write things with lasting value:
Concentrate on writing things with lasting value. I’m not sure I’ve been doing a good job of this at all lately — I think too much of what I write currently at DF is about stuff that’s only relevant right now. I’m certain that what helped me make a name for myself, what built the DF readership, were the long pieces I did in the first few years, most of which are still relevant, or at least still interesting. There are a lot of people writing for the web today; but there aren’t that many at all who are trying to do great writing for the web.
After a while, the style part of the equation comes naturally:
That’s hard to put into words. Early on, I had to think about my “voice”. I was conscious of my style. Now, not so much — I “just write”, and the style seems to come naturally. Part of that is that you get used to anything over time, but a bigger part is that the style changed slowly over time — I kept tweaking it until I found the perfect pitch, at which point it became something I didn’t have to think about to achieve.Put another way: early on, I had to concentrate both on what I was saying and how was I saying it. Now I just concentrate on what I’m saying.
I also find it much easier to write now that I have a regular audience. The hardest thing for me starting out at the very beginning was trying to shake the feeling that I was writing something no one would read. It felt like delivering a speech in an empty auditorium.
Create a narrative:
For me, much of the effort in writing, especially on technical topics, is in creating a narrative. By that I mean writing a piece that reads straight through, pulling the reader along. A perfect example of this is the way John Siracusa writes his epic-length reviews of major new Mac OS X releases for Ars Technica. What makes them so substantial, and so good, is that he crafts them into a narrative. Most reviews of something like Leopard read like bullet lists — a list of features and what the reviewer thinks about them. What graphic design is to a visual idea, writing is to a verbal idea. My goal is to craft my writing in such a way that makes it as easy and obvious as possible for the reader to “get” exactly what it is I’m hoping they get.
On finding the truth of a thing:
One of my favorite quotes of all time, probably my very favorite, is this one from Stanley Kubrick: “Sometimes the truth of a thing is not so much in the think of it, as in the feel of it.” A lot of times when I’m reviewing something, what I’m trying to do is capture the feel of it, rather than the think of it.
It’s never the right time to start:
It would seem like a missed opportunity never to write a book. Most novels are just dreadful; I don’t know if I could do a good one, but I know I could do better than most. But it never seems like the right time to start. I just stumbled across an apt quote from Emerson last week: “We postpone our literary work until we have more ripeness and skill to write, and we one day discover that our literary talent was a youthful effervescence which we have now lost.”
Paul Graham on “The Art of the Essay”
In that interview, Gruber references this Paul Graham essay which is full of meaty thinking on writing.
Writing for others leads to clear thinking:
Expressing ideas helps to form them. Indeed, helps is far too weak a word. Most of what ends up in my essays I only thought of when I sat down to write them. That’s why I write them… Just as inviting people over forces you to clean up your apartment, writing something that other people will read forces you to think well. So it does matter to have an audience. The things I’ve written just for myself are no good. They tend to peter out. When I run into difficulties, I find I conclude with a few vague questions and then drift off to get a cup of tea.
Surprises are the most valuable sort of facts:
Surprises are things that you not only didn’t know, but that contradict things you thought you knew. And so they’re the most valuable sort of fact you can get. They’re like a food that’s not merely healthy, but counteracts the unhealthy effects of things you’ve already eaten. How do you find surprises? Well, therein lies half the work of essay writing. (The other half is expressing yourself well.) The trick is to use yourself as a proxy for the reader. You should only write about things you’ve thought about a lot. And anything you come across that surprises you, who’ve thought about the topic a lot, will probably surprise most readers.
Joel Spolsky quotes Judge Judy
In “Microsoft can’t speak straight any more”, Joel Spolsky points out this is how Microsoft says, “SQL Server 2008 will be late”:
We want to provide clarification on the roadmap for SQL Server 2008. Over the coming months, customers and partners can look forward to significant product milestones for SQL Server. Microsoft is excited to deliver a feature complete CTP during the Heroes Happen Here launch wave and a release candidate (RC) in Q2 calendar year 2008, with final Release to manufacturing (RTM) of SQL Server 2008 expected in Q3. Our goal is to deliver the highest quality product possible and we simply want to use the time to meet the high bar that you, our customers, expect.
Joel’s commentary on this:
What? Can you understand that? “A feature complete CTP during the Heroes Happen Here launch wave?” What on earth does that mean? The guy who wrote this, Francois Ajenstat, ought to be ashamed of himself. Have some guts. Just say it’s late. We really don’t care that much. SQL Server 2005 is fine. As Judge Judy says, “Don’t piss on my leg and tell me it’s raining.”
AD
on 21 Feb 08It was quite sad to me that the Gruber interview only slightly touched upon his insistence on not allowing comments on his blog. He occasionally posts pretty provocative remarks and there is no way for his readers to disagree or even continue the discussion. To this reader, it is cowardly and borderline offensive to refuse feedback of posted thoughts on your blog. In the interview he also admits to merely skimming through the comments that people email him.
Ben
on 21 Feb 08AD,
It’s John Gruber’s site. If you want to discuss his remarks, use your own blog or contact him via whatever method he allows. It is not cowardly or offensive. It is actually a fairly practical way of cutting down on the “noise” factor and, considering how busy John is, more effective use of his time.
Chris Bowler
on 21 Feb 08Kind of like leaving comments without an email or web address…
You can always email him if you feel really strongly about something.
Peter Cooper
on 21 Feb 08I agree with AD but only when it’s someone who a) has a large following – is popular, and b) says things that are flat out wrong – or incredibly debatable. I stopped reading Seth Godin’s blog because of this. He has posted some things that are flat out wrong in the past yet I’m sure a lot of readers will just take it as gospel because no-one was able to comment on the same page with either a correction or start a discussion on the nuances.
I don’t think not accepting or publishing comments is cowardly or offensive, but instead it’s damaging to the idea of spreading knowledge rather than just your opinion.
AD
on 21 Feb 08I’m not just stepping out of the crowd to sound off here… I have emailed DF and just never got any responses. Also, my emails were not antagonistic or combative (I hope!), mainly curious.
I do apologize for the harsh words I used in my comment. It just irked me that the lack of commenting is something that I and all my friends who read DF talk about regularly, but other bloggers (either for or against) don’t seem to bring up. Ben, I can see that the noise factor would be a primary driver to leave out commenting, but I hope that maybe in the future if there are more resources to throw at the site that commenting will be taken into consideration.
Still, does anyone out there think that, for the type of blog DF is and “noise” not being an issue, that a closed system is really better than an open system?
Thomas Ptacek
on 21 Feb 08Before condemning someone else as a coward, it might be good form to actually disclose your name.
Mike
on 21 Feb 08Who’s John Gruber? It appears from his site that I can buy a John Gruber t-shirt but it sounds like I’ll get my butt kicked by somebody in a bar if I wear it.
David Ham
on 21 Feb 08@AD: I wouldn’t say it’s cowardly, at all. His name appears at the top of the DF homepage; he’s not hiding or anything. As to whether a closed system or an open system is “better,” that’s for Gruber to decide. If he doesn’t want to spend the time or energy weeding the comments on his site, if he wants the site to be only his own words, that’s 100% his choice. These editorial choices, with his words and ideas, compete in the marketplace of public discourse just like anyone else’s, and I’m sure he’s content with that. If people want to disagree with him they can write in or complain on their own blogs.
Ricky Irvine
on 21 Feb 08John Gruber’s web site doesn’t have commenting like a traditional blog because John Gruber’s web site is not a traditional blog. Daring Fireball is a column, like in magazine or newspaper. Of course, if you wanted to engage the author in dialogue in a magazine or newspaper, you’d have to write to him and hope for a personal or public response (or, if you are also an author, publish a piece in response to his). This is how you engage in dialogue with John Gruber.
Not every web site is a blog.
Alan DeMaire
on 21 Feb 08All good points. As I read DF as a feed, I don’t see it as a website. And the linked list isn’t really a column anyway, is it? I think that I just see DF as an anomaly out of all the feeds that I read from individuals. I just went through all my subscribed Mac blogs, blogs on anthropology and economics and it happens to be one of only two that are closed blogs. Granted, the three categories only encompass about 25 feeds and my guess is that traffic-wise, DF is among the top 5.
Dennis
on 21 Feb 08The Microsoft example…wow. The more you bury your message in company-specific buzzwords and phrases, the less we can find and hear your actual message.
Saying things like “significant product milestones,” “launch wave,” and “Our goal is to deliver the highest quality product possible…meet the high bar…” does not differentiate their situation, because every company says those things. An audience naturally cancels out such marketingspeak as noise. They are literally attention-killers. Which is not what Microsoft wants, one would think.
The way Ajenstat’s message checks off specific boxes in Buzzword Bingo, you can tell the message wasn’t written for his customers.
It was written for his managers.
George
on 21 Feb 08It’s strange that Gruber has so many really great insights in that interview. I read his website fairly frequently and it seems like he only goes out of his way to do a big piece of writing when he wants to troll someone who has said something negative about Apple. I wish he’d devote his efforts to, like he says, something with more lasting value.
Nic
on 22 Feb 08George, part of it depends on your definition of lasting value. Some of the things he had mentioned in the interview were still about Mac-related stuff, but those can be of lasting value, too.
I’d venture to say that some of his longer pieces on Mac security are of lasting value because they deal with an issue that, all too often, is regarded incorrectly by popular tech media.
Alan, on the Linked List front, he talked about that as part of his interview and how it grew out from the website and wasn’t his original intention.
It’s a good assessment that DF is different than most sites out there, but a good similar example would be Jason Kottke’s site, which only on occasion allows comments.
Glenn Wolsey
on 22 Feb 08This is why Daring Fireball is comment free – the words of John Gruber.
“I wanted to write a site for someone it’s meant for. That reader I write for is a second version of me. I’m writing for him. He’s interested in the exact same things I’m interested in; he reads the exact same websites I read. I want him to like this website so much that he reads it from the top to the bottom, and he reads everything. Every single word. The copyright statement, what software I use, he’s read it all.
If I turn comments on, that goes away. It’s not that I don’t like sites with comments on, but when you read a site with comments it automatically puts you, the reader, in a defensive mode where you’re saying, “what’s good in this comment thread? What can I skim?”
It’s totally egotistical. I want Daring Fireball to be a site that you can’t skim if you’re in the target audience for it. You say, “Oh, a new article from John. I need to read it,” and your deadlines go whizzing by because you have to read what I wrote.
If I turn comments on I feel like it’s two different directions. You get to the end of my article and you’re like, “let’s see if there’s anything interesting. Let’s see if there’s any names I know.” That’s really it. Sometimes a design decision is what you don’t put in, as opposed to what you put in.”
Dan
on 22 Feb 08@AD: You could always start a blog that links to Gruber’s articles, adds your commentary, and encouraging others to comment.
That’s the beauty of the internet, no one can prevent you from discussing their ideas. Sure, you may not be able to command the same number of readers as Gruber, but the people who strongly agree or disagree with the ideas will find their way to you. Those are the people who have something worth listening to anyway.
This discussion is closed.