Hacker News Reader

Comment by tablatom | Hacker News Reader

The first review on that page[1] is a well argued counterpoint to Graham's essay. Getting your ideas understood is often only one part of what you're trying to achieve.

If that really is your only goal, then I agree, the simpler the better.

[1] https://www.goodreads.com/review/show/755379555?book_show_ac...

View on HN

Having read a fair amount of Zizek and some Foucault I have to agree. Obfuscation can be just as useful as clarity.

Can you explain that? As an engineer I think generally anything that can be done more simply is nearly always better.

Not the parent poster, but: think of speed bumps. They force you to slow down and pay more attention to the road.

Some writers, particularly post-modern ones, aim at the same thing. By forcing you to read their works carefully, you'll (in theory) be forced to think about them more.

I don’t think this essay precludes that either, the 1% of 1% of books that are made better by being Proust rather than Vonnegut. And the chances of you being Proust are essentially zero.

That feels like the author is saying “I’m so clever you need to be told when to think about this,” whereas i would prefer to think at my own pace, without deliberate obfuscation, thanks very much.

If it’s a work of art, fair enough. If you’re trying to explain or argue something... then you’re probably hiding the holes in your argument or trying to sound smarter than you are.

...it’s not my reasoning. I’m explaining why some postmodern writers say they have that style. Personally I think it can be hit or miss.

I see, thanks for sharing. Just makes them sound pompous.

The pretension is the point. The readers want to come across as sophisticated by claiming to have understood impenetrable gibberish.

James Joyce fan I see ;-)

I agree with you personally. But find that not everyone wants to communicate clearly. Some people have made a career out of impenetrable communication.

If anything, it’s useful that language can sometimes slow you down. It’s one of the things language is able to do. Not everything benefits from sliding in as slickly as possible, letting you use your “mental models” to quickly grasp an idea you don’t already have.

I’m not fond of Foucault, but from time to time I explain to my pragmatic wife what Deleuze or Zizek are all about in $book, and as best as I try to explain them in plain words, much of what I got doesn’t come across. Tradutore traditore.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com