A strong setup can certainly pull readers in. The problem is often most inexperienced writers use such a setup to clear away their "mind fog" and get to the point. And once the words are on the page it's hard to remove them (nobody wants wasted effort).
My guidance to new writers is always this: start with two bulleted items. First is a question or priming sentence. Second is the conclusion the reader will takeaway after reading what you've written.
Once you have those two bullet points you make them part of your first paragraph AND use them to structure the entirety of the piece (just add more bullet items between the first and second points).
https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/recipe-filter/ahlc...
Part of the problem is that almost every food blogger is emulating the exact same character. It's the same harried but still whipping something creative together, educated but conspicuously mentions liking a glass of wine, love-my-kids-but-man-do-they-get-on-my-nerves persona. It's the 2010's white sitcom parent writ large.
I'd read a lot more of the prose on these blogs if they didn't all sound the same.
depends a lot on the commentary, though - i probably don't care about your feelings (sorry) or descriptive prose. on the other hand, when i'm looking up a recipe from another culture, i really value commentary on the background or history of the dish.
I know I read this somewhere, but can’t find the reference now. So, take this with a grain of salt or a starting point for your own research :)
I assume people are trying to be the next online cooking personality who gets to publish a book. I've seen a couple in shops with pictures of YouTube recipe demonstration people on the cover.
Also, more text is more "content" to mix adverts into.
I just assume that they associate recipes and foods with times and places and people (generally happily) and it's akin to "do you remember that time mother cooked weasel?" kind of conversations you'd have with people, except on a blog.
But a lot of the sites I've seen don't feel that way. They feel like they are desperately trying to feel that way though (the old "sincerity is key: once you can fake it you win" skit).
Ah, yes. Of course. This is the most plausible explanation IMO.
Acronym expanded for the benefit of anyone else who's browsing HN before coffee and would have taken a similarly embarrassing length of time to infer the likely meaning of this one, which I'd never seen before.
That's why I love King Arthur Flour's recipes (among others). Short intro, and then it gets right into how to get more consistency and quality out of the recipe or how to do variations on the recipe. It's not another long winded essay that boils down to "I cook this for my family."
I don't think you've nailed it.
It's all calculated, just like that exquisite art piece someone crafted just for that article.
It's designed to string you along to keep you on that page, and to bloat the content so more ads can be inserted.
Also, don't forget that every word is also potentially a search-engine stuffer. Some verbiage is machine-generated for this purpose.
"A single edit, eliminating unnecessary words, works wonders for any first draft."
It's a cheap shot (that I learned from Language Log) but if you're going to live by the sword...
This phrasing makes it clear that the goal of that edit is to eliminate every unnecessary words.
> A single edit, eliminating unnecessary words
This phrasing implies that just one edit is needed, no particular focus, and is satisfied by eliminating some unnecessary words.
By your own interpretation, we can get rid of "ruthlessly", no?
> This phrasing implies that just one edit is needed
I don't think it does, even when disconnected from the rest of the sentence. It's fairly clear to me that it's talking about an edit where you "eliminat[e] unnecessary words" which may or may not be part of a greater editing process.
Also referring to personal anecdotes of random persons to further a point.
I also find the use of statistics/citing numbers from studies to prove a point, a most boring way to argue a point in writing.
This definitely depends on the point being argued, and the rigour expected by the audience. For any vaguely technical subject, it's quite possible to cite statistics to great effect, though it may not always be necessary.
Actually, your comment made me think about how I respond to statistics in non-technical writing, say, in a news article or forum post. My gut reaction seems to be: "how is the author going to spin this fact, and what other evidence did they conveniently ignore because it contradicts their argument?"
Pet peeve of mine - If we could eliminate the "I appear to be talking about something happening today, but am actually talking about something that happened in 1840" article setup entirely, that would make me very happy. It was clever at first, but you can now usually see the setup coming a mile off.
But even then, you probably should be very selective when you do it. If the point is to entertain, it may be OK. (The Avengers Endgame is just over three hours. I bet there's some buildup in that.)
But don't do it if the point is to communicate. I read somewhere that someone said (either about physics or CS): "There's 50 times as much going on as I can keep up with, and I only operate at 2% efficiency. So there's this factor of 2500 working against me, and every day I fall seven years further behind." In that kind of of environment, if I read your stuff, you'd better not waste my time.
I know why this happens. When you sit down to write, you don't know what exactly you're going to say. You may even be anxious about it. Then, an idea sparks your imagination and you start writing stuff. The warmup that comes out initially gets you on track. Nothing wrong with that.
The harm is keeping that crap in the post. Delete it! If I don't understand what I'm about to read in the first paragraph, I'm probably done.
Something else I don't like: writers who use too many words. The telltale sign of a first draft is the vast quantity of words (and even entire sentences) that don't need to be there.
A single edit with the goal of ruthlessly eliminating every unnecessary word works wonders for any first draft.
Edit: On the topic of fiction, the author gives a beautiful example from the Wizard of Oz:
> When Dorothy stood in the doorway and looked around, she could see nothin but the great gray prairie on every side. Not a tree nor a house broke the broad sweep of flat country that reached the edge of the sky in all directions. The sun had baked the plowed land into a gray mass, with little cracks running through it. Even the grass was not green, for the sun had burned the tops of the long blades until they were the same gray color to be seen everywhere. Once the house had been painted, but the sun blistered the paint and the rains washed it away, and now the house was as dull and gray as everything else. [continues]
I haven't read the book but this passage alone makes me want to.