When writing, don't mention people who've criticized you
16 comments
·March 19, 2025justonceokay
Anyone who wants a case study in referencing detractors can read Pale Fire by Nabakov. It’s a beautiful 80 page epic poem with 200 pages of footnotes by the author’s less talented and insecure colleague.
readthenotes1
David Drake used to Tuckerize one of his critics in an unflattering way. PG is wrong
nashashmi
> if you are wrong, no one …
… No one cares about what you are saying, so it doesn’t matter anyways.
satisfice
I think Paul Graham is wrong about this. I am mentioning his name because it is good, helpful, and reasonable to do so.
I don’t know this guy. I don’t know his background or how he came to believe that, apparently, we should sever all connections between a person and his words if what we have to say is critical, rather than fawning and congratulatory. But maybe some reader does know, and will be better able to process my critique.
Personally, I find it frustrating when people criticize what are obviously my ideas, yet don’t name me. It makes it much harder for people to check the sources and decide for themselves.
If you are interested more in marketing and politics than truth and understanding, of course you should avoid saying the names of your nemeses. Otherwise, be strong and do what’s right.
keeda
Interesting, my take is that criticizing ideas rather than people leads to better discourse, primarily because it automatically makes things less personal, which tends to keep the tone of conversation neutral. That is not to say that ideas should not be attributed to people, but I always try to frame my writing as "argument X is wrong" rather than "you are wrong" because it is more specific and feels less like a personal attack.
glorygut123
What if you have criticized yourself?
zfg
Charles Darwin did. He came out alright. New editions of On the Origin of Species addressed the criticisms:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_the_Origin_of_Species#Publi...
Charles Darwin will still be remembered long after Paul Graham is forgotten.
nitwit005
Mentioning other relevant work is normal. You can do it without being a jerk.
dekhn
His ideas border on the sociopathic. They are certainly arrogant and quite simplistic.
_Algernon_
Better not working in academia then, cause you will have a plagiarism accusation coming for you.
blast
You can fail to mention critics without copying anyone. For example, doing nothing at all satisfies both conditions.
Maybe you meant failing to cite authors you quote? That's not what the OP is talking about.
_Algernon_
You don't have to quote someone to have to cite them. It is sufficient to reproduce the ideas (eg. by paraphrasing them).
Of course you can just not write about your critics in the first place, but I don't think that's OP's intent, as that would be a huge nothing burger of a tweet.
null
qotgalaxy
[dead]
It's a sign of deep thinking to address valid criticisms in your writing, especially if you want to make a compelling case for something [1]. Almost never is somebody completely right or completely wrong. Nuance exists everywhere and it is better to acknowledge it rather than risk having your work being dismissed as simplistic.
Maybe he means the type of writing intended for social media that optimizes for short attention spans and engagement, but many would argue that has not been a good thing for public discourse.
[1] If something seems distracting but worth addressing, put it in a footnote.