From what I have read from several sources --especially from the Paris Review interviews- the routines for many good writers share the following traits:<p>- Most productive time is in the morning, right after waking up + optional coffee/breakfast.<p>- The time slot dedicated to writing lasts 4-6 continuous hours and that's it for the day, as far as for the pure creative process goes.<p>- No distraction when writing, so it is not weird to see people writing by hand or typewriter.<p>- Same starting/finishing time every day.<p>- Many writers like to go for a walk or nap after finishing the main daily task.<p>All those things are pretty much aligned what the current research says about productivity so I dont think is just a coincidence.
Whenever anyone wants to talk to Paul Graham about writing I always wonder whether they've read any of his works, because since writing "On Lisp" (which I think is great) he's been in a death spiral of self-importance.<p>Let's take a recent example (from [1]):<p><pre><code> > Though no doubt correct, such statements tell the reader
> nothing. Useful writing makes claims that are as strong as
> they can be made without becoming false.
> For example, it's more useful to say that Pike's Peak is
> near the middle of Colorado than merely somewhere in
> Colorado. But if I say it's in the exact middle of
> Colorado, I've now gone too far, because it's a bit east
> of the middle.
</code></pre>
This is <i>deeply pedestrian</i> writing you could be proud of if English was your second language and writing was not any sort of job but as written it reads like that boring father-in-law who collars you at a family picnic and insists on telling you (even though you know) about what a frequent flyer programme is and about that time 15 years ago when they hit silver status.<p>It's a very unfair comparison, but if you want to read amazing technical writing, try reading "Everything and more: A compact history of Infinity" by David Foster Wallace. Or contrast PG's essay with Umberto Eco's "How to write a Thesis"[2].<p>It's hard to escape the conclusion that PG's writing would not survive a double-blind test where someone didn't see his name attached.<p>[1] <a href="http://www.paulgraham.com/useful.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.paulgraham.com/useful.html</a><p>[2] It's a whole book but is excerpted here in a format that bears comparison to PG's essay <a href="https://thereader.mitpress.mit.edu/umberto-eco-how-to-write-a-thesis/" rel="nofollow">https://thereader.mitpress.mit.edu/umberto-eco-how-to-write-...</a>
If you are interested in the routines of writers, I can't recommend <i>Daily Rituals</i> by Mason Curry enough. Kierkegaard's method of preparing coffee is probably my favorite:<p><i>“The Danish philosopher’s day was dominated by two pursuits: writing and walking. Typically, he wrote in the morning, set off on a long walk through Copenhagen at noon, and then returned to his writing for the rest of the day and into the evening. The walks were where he had his best ideas, and sometimes he would be in such a hurry to get them down that, returning home, he would write standing up before his desk, still wearing his hat and gripping his walking stick or umbrella.<p>Kierkegaard kept up his energy with coffee, usually taken after supper and a glass of sherry. Israel Levin, his secretary from 1844 until 1850, recalled that Kierkegaard owned “at least fifty sets of cups and saucers, but only one of each sort”—and that, before coffee could be served, Levin had to select which cup and saucer he preferred that day, and then, bizarrely, justify his choice to Kierkegaard. And this was not the end of the strange ritual. The biographer Joakim Garff writes:</i><p><i>“Kierkegaard had his own quite peculiar way of having coffee: Delightedly he seized hold of the bag containing the sugar and poured sugar into the coffee cup until it was piled up above the rim. Next came the incredibly strong, black coffee, which slowly dissolved the white pyramid. The process was scarcely finished before the syrupy stimulant disappeared into the magister’s stomach, where it mingled with the sherry to produce additional energy that percolated up into his seething and bubbling brain—which in any case had already been so productive all day that in the half-light Levin could still notice the tingling and throbbing in the overworked fingers when they grasped the slender handle of the cup.”</i><p><a href="https://www.amazon.com/Daily-Rituals-How-Artists-Work/dp/0307273601" rel="nofollow">https://www.amazon.com/Daily-Rituals-How-Artists-Work/dp/030...</a><p><a href="https://www.theguardian.com/science/2013/oct/05/daily-rituals-creative-minds-mason-currey" rel="nofollow">https://www.theguardian.com/science/2013/oct/05/daily-ritual...</a>
<a href="https://www.writingroutines.com/routines/" rel="nofollow">https://www.writingroutines.com/routines/</a><p>Had a scroll through those interviews. Lord, what a hack fest. A conga line of cringe, meh, and OKAY.
Only Paul Graham and the more fanatic acolytes believe Paul Graham is a good writer ("...and Paul Graham is having second thoughts", the joke usually goes on. But PG has only ever had one thought, and LISP isn't <i>that</i> great).<p>Seriously: in comparison to, say, Scott Alexander, I don't see a single novel idea in Graham's Oeuvre. Mix any current text generator with the opinions of some 1980s teen just discovering Ayn Rand-style libertarianism, and it will fill as many pages as you want with the expected drivel, only in superior prose.
Paul Graham, on the front page for more unsubstantial Paul Graham content.<p>I mean, his essays are decent but this was a snooze-fest of an interview. And recent Paul Graham blog posts that have shown up here have been obvious nonsense.<p>I think we need to stop encouraging personality cults. This is a guy who’s a decent writer and also happened to ride the dot com boom to wealth. There’s nothing really admirable about it. You can’t gain any magical advice from someone like this because they stumbled into success. All the self-help style advice offered is basically either already obvious or impossible to replicate.<p>All you gotta do is make a product that Yahoo! will buy off you for millions of dollars and you too can spend most of your time writing essays and starting venture capital funds.<p>If I ran my own venture that had a community forum I’d probably be creeped out by people talking about me like I’m a savant of advice all
the time...