[not_maz]

Paul’s style of removing all friction might help the concepts slide smoothly into one’s brain, but as antirez points out, they’re less likely to stick.

That's fine. The ideas transmit, the words are forgotten. He doesn't need to use memorable sentences if he's saying what he's trying to say.

Paul Graham is a very skilled communicator. He's not a writer's writer like YKW, but he doesn't need to be.

[epolanski]

Idk, I'm conflicted here because PG is the embodiment of a poor amateur writer with good ideas.

He is literally the proof that writing can be bad (albeit we should define what good and bad writing are and agree on it) but still interesting because of the ideas.

[inglor_cz]

I write for living (albeit in Czech) and I don't think that PGs writing is bad. It is not artistically brilliant (unlike Douglas Adams'), but he gets his points clearly across, and uses a language that even foreigners with limited command of English can parse.

That's good in my opinion - in the same sense that hammer which drives down nails flawlessly is good. PG is not trying to write colorful fiction, he wants to communicate something, and he succeeds in doing so. It is still a hammer, not a statue of David, but there are good and bad hammers, and this is a good hammer. You wouldn't want to drive nails into boards with a statue of David anyway.

[borski]

Hard disagree. I find PG’s writing to be some of the best writing out there, for essays.