Hacker News Reader

Comment by mechanical_fish | Hacker News Reader

You're so close to understanding this essay, and yet I fear you're a thousand miles away.

I'm going to kill the poetry by trying to explain it, but try translating each phrase like this: When you read:

"Steve Jobs did not [do X], he [did Y]."

read it as:

"It's not so much that Steve Jobs did [legendary thing X], as that he did [apparently simple thing Y, and did you notice that by doing so he just happened to accomplish X as a side effect?]"

The author agrees with you.

(Note, by the way, that my rephrasing is absolutely bloated with weasel words that diminish its impact. That's why the original author wrote the way he did, at the expense of losing the literalists in the audience.)

View on HN

I find such sentences as:

>Steve Jobs was not a futurist. He just built the future one piece at a time.

to be almost hypnotically devoid of meaning and disrespectful to the reader. Why not just say what's true? A good reader can be stunned by the truth, without needing to be lead through a difficult contradiction for dramatic effect.

Well sure. I mean, Abe Lincoln could have shortened the Gettysburg Address to "Let's free the slaves and reunite the union", but that wouldn't have had the same impact as the speech he did give.

There's nothing wrong with presenting a difficult idea that has a more dramatic effect. Do you think Moby Dick or War and Peace are considered great due to their simple ways of communicating ideas?

"Do you think Moby Dick or War and Peace are considered great due to their simple ways of communicating ideas?"

This is not an argument for being deliberately obtuse.

As long as you don't lose accuracy, sure. I think many of these crossed that line. They remind me of the tendency for bloggers to make a link-bait headline that obviously sounds bad, then they spend their whole post redefining what those words mean so at the end, their title is a good thing.

Apologies for the digression, but this subject matters to me. The Gettysburg Address is perhaps the greatest example of writing that's stunning without being difficult to interpret. For that matter of War & Peace is clear and generally free of embellishment.

I agree with scott_s that the whole article is written more in the style of linkbait than a challenging poem.

So I take it you don't read poetry.

I had a similar reaction to grandparent. On reflection, my issue is that while the author may intend this as a tribute to steve, it comes across to me as exploitation. The author uses steve's death to advance an ideology. You say "poetry", I say "crass marketing". On the occasion of his death, let steve be steve, not a way to argue a point.

That would be fine if his statements were factually correct. For example, the author's point is Steve Jobs built an organization that created great products. But he also ACTUALLY HELPED BUILD great products. Along with creating the organization.

So he doesn't really agree with me. I see your point about poetic license (and I'll be the first to admit I'm dense in the ways of poetry) but if your poetic license leads to factually incorrect statements you've taken it to far.

There are people who see the results that Steve Jobs helped create, and because they don't understand the process, they think that somehow he had magical instincts, or this was a unique talent.

Then there are those who see the process Steve Jobs utilized and recognize that the process is where he really innovated... and further, by studying and understanding this process, we can do better.

It's obvious that you are in the first group. I quote, from your own blog: "To be honest I don’t think you can learn much from Steve Jobs because he had such an extraordinary talent. His instincts were better than the combined rational thought of an entire industry. So in most things you can’t hope to emulate Steve Jobs."

So long as you believe this, you will never learn from him. That's fine. But when you post on HN and blatantly miss the forest for the trees, you're not going to be abel to successfully debate people who are telling you about the forest.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com