Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Write like you talk

paulgraham.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 282 posts

Re: Write like you talk

#61

Post by trobertson »

kanzure wrote: post #56
stupidcar wrote: post #38

If you've ever read a verbatim transcript of an interview or conversation, you'll know that actual speech is anything but clear. When talking off the cuff, even the most clear minded people tend to ramble, um and ahh, double back, talk across each other, and jump between points and subjects. When listening to someone in person, our brains seem to edit what they say on the fly to make it comprehendible, focusing on th…

> If you've ever read a verbatim transcript of an interview or conversation, you'll know that actual speech is anything but clear When I go to conferences and sit in the audience, I type transcripts in real-time. I somewhat agree with you, but I have some other evidence that I don't know what to do with: http://diyhpl.us/wiki/transcripts/ I have found that some people are amazingly well spoken. Absurdly well spoken,…

Generally speaking, people who give talks have them prepared beforehand. They practice speaking it, to make sure that it's clear and understandable. So to say that it's easy to write a transcript for a planned talk isn't really saying anything. It's already been written, and writing the transcript of the presentation is just a rewrite. Not all talks are prewritten, but almost all of the good ones are.

I'd also like to note that presentations are very dissimilar to conversations, and some interviews. Conversations are at least a two-directional flow of information (more directions with more people), whereas the bulk of presentations are a one-way flow of information.

Re: Write like you talk

#64

Post by darkr »

The crux of this argument was explored with more eloquence and substance by Orwell in his essay Politics and the English Language[1].

I also agree with some of Orwell's critics, that these rules only hold water for pursuasive and/or [mildly] polemic writing, which is largely the style of tech blogging. Personally I would like to see more tech writing in the Joycean tradition.

1: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politics_and_the_English_Lan...

Re: Write like you talk

#65

Post by triplesec »

PG is writing about getting people to read your nonfiction words. There is a place for other things, but he's talking about getting across a simple message, or making comprehensible more complex ones. In this, the advice, old as the hills, is sage and useful.

However, he omits to say that for other purposes, and other audiences - like this one, for example - if you want a nuances, thoughtful and colourful conversation, exploring more layers of meaning and implication, don't just use the ten hundred words people use the most often. https://xkcd.com/1133/ For if you do, once the XKCD comedy is over, we end up in a very dull Newspeak place indeed.

Re: Write like you talk

#67

Post by etanol »

Spoken language is backed by other optional channels of information:

* Audio: speaker controls tone, speed and emphasis

* Video: body language

* Feedback: listener can acknowledge reception or ask for repetition

Written language has more time to be composed and it usually has the possibility of being ammended before submission.

Therefore, I always considered natural the difference between spoken and written language styles.

On a less picky opinion: agreed, complex ideas should not be written in complex language.

Re: Write like you talk

#68

Post by ikeboy »

dannylandau wrote: post #24
jmduke wrote: post #9

This is fairly popular advice, and I heard it at least a half dozen times at my (liberal arts) college. That's not to dismiss this post because its takeaway is commonplace: I agree with the sentiment. However, I think it's important to embrace the full implication of its thesis: Informal language is the athletic clothing of ideas. Athletic clothing is comfortable, it is functional, and it traffics in convenience. But…

I remember reading one of Isaac Isimov's biographies, where he mentions that one of the critiques of his writing is that it is too simple. His response -- that's the way it is supposed to be!

Orson Scott Card made a similar point in one of the intros to Ender's Game.

Re: Write like you talk

#69

Post by dkersten »

trobertson wrote: post #61
kanzure wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If you've ever read a verbatim transcript of an interview or conversation, you'll know that actual speech is anything but clear When I go to conferences and sit in the audience, I type transcripts in real-time. I somewhat agree with you, but I have some other evidence that I don't know what to do with: http://diyhpl.us/wiki/transcripts/ I have found that some people are amazingly well spoken. Absurdly well spoken,…

Generally speaking, people who give talks have them prepared beforehand. They practice speaking it, to make sure that it's clear and understandable. So to say that it's easy to write a transcript for a planned talk isn't really saying anything. It's already been written, and writing the transcript of the presentation is just a rewrite. Not all talks are prewritten, but almost all of the good ones are. I'd also like t…

Even if they're not "prewritten", they have generally been prepared. For example, if I give a talk, I'll at least have made (mental or written) notes on what points I want to make and in what order.

When I'm in a natural conversation, the list of points I want to make is made up on the fly and is usually quite fluid (changes back and forth as I or the other people talk as a function of what is being said).

That is, talks, even if not already "written", are not the same as natural conversation at all.

I also find that really great impromptu speakers actually do speak more coherently in their natural conversations too. I assume because they're used to pre-editing what they're saying in their heads as they talk.

Re: Write like you talk

#70

Post by ninjakeyboard »

Depends on the tone that you want to set. For a blog etc I think conversationalist tone is fine. Even fast design docs can benefit from a conversationalist tone. Trying to write a big technical design doc w/ that tone wouldn't fit though IMO so you have to evaluate case by case.
Post reply on HN