[saberience]

I've never read any essay written by Paul Graham which had a point I hadn't read before somewhere or else or otherwise encountered a thought of his which was was actually original or new. He just repackages general truisms, common-sense or someone else's thought and because he's Paul Graham it gets attention and people post his essay up on HN. That's it.

[nickpp]

PG's been writing these essays long before HN or YC. Actually those essays in the beginning made him known and helped him attract the first batches of founders. Those founders (and subsequent ones) have done incredible things. They have created and added tremendous value to countless people's life.

So there is value in these essays. You don't have to see it or appreciate it but denigrating it just turns the question on you: who are you? what have you done? what do you have to show and teach us?

[saberience]

It's possible and indeed normal to critique things even if you are not famous or notable and that's a fairly poor argument against any critic. People who never written a play or poem write critiques of Shakespeare all the time, should they be banned from doing so because they're not playwrights or poets?

Likewise, it's possible for someone to manage a sports team, successfully I might add, even if they were never a top player in that sport. My point is, I don't need to be a billionaire or found a successful company to be able to critique Paul Graham's writing. I personally find it banal and would rather seek out writers who came up with novel ideas, like for example Carl Jung or Joseph Campbell to name a couple.

[varjag]

His Plan For Spam was novel, original and really helped decimate email spam at the time.