The Best Essay
An essay by Paul Graham on what would constitute “the best essay” prompts debate over whether such a thing can exist at all, given that writing quality is only partially ordered and heavily dependent on audience and purpose. Commenters challenge his emphasis on scientific and technological breakthroughs as the highest subjects for essays, pointing instead to literature, politics, and personal experience as equally or more enduring sources of great writing. While some praise his points about discovery, intellectual honesty, and depth coming from doing, others criticize the piece as philosophically shallow, self-regarding, or inattentive to the rich history and variety of the essay form.
Site and stylistic impressions
- Some note the blog looks unchanged on desktop but very different on mobile; overall design is described as old-fashioned.
- A few readers say the prose “sounds” different or even AI-generated, though this is contested and left unclear.
Concept of “the best essay” and ordering
- Many challenge the idea that a single “best essay” can exist.
- Several argue the author confuses “better than” (partial order) with a global ranking (total order); best-in-category doesn’t imply a universal best.
- The claim that critics are “pseudo‑intellectuals” is widely criticized as ad hominem and philosophically sloppy.
What makes a great essay: topic, surprise, truth
- The essay’s criteria (important topic + surprising insight) resonate with some, especially the emphasis on initial questions and discovery.
- Others say this ignores emotional impact, rhetoric, audience, and other dimensions (e.g., most moving, most persuasive, most enduring).
Breadth vs. depth, and the “super‑genius” tangent
- The line “breadth comes from reading… depth from doing” is heavily discussed.
- Some agree: real depth comes only from practice and “doing the work.”
- Others counter that deep knowledge can come from reading in well‑documented fields, or that the statement is narrow and dismissive.
- Long subthreads debate “super‑geniuses” who supposedly master domains from minimal input, with anecdotes, skepticism, and references to famous mathematicians.
Scope of great essays: science/tech vs. relationships and society
- The essay’s suggestion that the best essays are usually about major scientific/technological discoveries draws strong pushback.
- Many point to classic essays on relationships, religion, politics, and civil rights as counterexamples; several list canonical literary and political essays.
- Some say this reflects a tech‑centric, capitalist bias and a weak grasp of humanities.
Engagement with essay tradition and the word “essay”
- Several are surprised the piece barely mentions actual essays besides an 1844 evolution manuscript, which is long and atypical.
- Others invoke Montaigne and the etymology of “essay” as “to try,” arguing that essays are exploratory attempts rather than optimal products.
Writing process, format, and meta‑comparisons
- Readers like the focus on questions, rewriting, and backtracking, and some see parallels to startup creation.
- Others compare the described process to language‑model “beam search.”
- The separated notes/footnotes are seen as disruptive; suggestions include inline notes, page‑bottom footnotes, or Tufte‑style margins.
Overall reception
- Some find the piece inspirational for their own writing.
- Others see it as a “big miss”: superficial, self‑regarding, or recycling obvious insights in grandiose terms.