Write like you talk

Most of the comments, here, are taking the statement too literally. What he means is to write sentences in a way you would in normal conversation and not try to be a writer of linguistic elocution. Don't use abbreviations, long words we may not know, pretending to be Hemingway.

Too many pretend to be Hemingway when they should write like Brian Kernighan at least.

No thanks.

Exactly, formality can be part of the message, and sometimes less is a bore.

There is certainly a place for more formal language at times, if only to communicate intent and add a bit of pepper to the writing. For example Will Self would not be Will Self without using ten words where one would do, nor would Poe or Henry James (who I suspect spoke much as he wrote).

I think what pg is objecting to here though is probably people putting on airs by attempting a more formal register than they are comfortable with, and thus coming across as a little stilted and a little fake and obscuring their meaning rather than communicating it. This is a particular problem in art criticism, where postmodern art critics adopt a certain stilted, formal, and impenetrable language as a sort of shibboleth; the height of this style is probably someone like Camille Paglia, who gives the impression of saying much about Art without saying much at all (IMO).

Of course you can also do the same by trying to be informal without being intimately acquainted with the particular usage you're trying to emulate, and it depends who you're talking to. What is appropriate (both in speech and in writing) depends on context more than we like to admit.

This has to be some of the worst advice I have seen on HN, an achievement in itself. I have lurked here a long time and this article is so stupid and poorly written I actually am taking the time to register.

Simplifying your writing is an effective technique for certain styles and genres. Moreover, it is indeed true that some people speak more eloquently than they write. Conversely, one must acknowledge that the opposite is true. Advising people to write as they speak is overgeneralizing and even harmful in many cases.

Anecdotally, I find most people do not speak very clearly. I grew up bilingual and I find the average spoken English to be particularly imprecise and sloppy, especially compared to other languages. Written English, on the other hand has many subtleties, rules, structure, and formalities that aid most kinds of writing. On a personal level, written English is far more pleasurable, efficient, and expressive to me.

Again, there are some types of writing that can benefit from disregarding formalities and drawing from spoken English. Dialogue is one obvious example where the benefits of writing as one might speak can be an asset, however Graham's article I suspect is not really trying to make you a better novelist. Ironically, writing dialogue in ways that it might not be spoken often produces more engaging content to anyone with even a passing appreciation for skilled writing. It is precisely because characters might say something we would never that we might find them intelligent, interesting, or find another quality that makes us react strongly and in a polarizing way to a character. The same holds true to other types of writing - we write a certain way to make content clear, but also at times interesting, engaging, and fulfilling.

The problem with a lot of written English is that most people do not know basics, let along actual writing techniques. Notice in Graham's article he manages to commit dozens of mistakes despite revealing that someone else proofread. For instance, Graham uses the same word twice in a row in his first paragraph, writes redundantly in a crafted article about writing, and abuses paragraphs. There are other mistakes as well, but the larger point is that Graham is presenting himself as an authority on writing technique, and yet would have received a poor grade from any of my teachers.

Lowering your writing standards and abusing the English language to address inept or illiterate readers is not quality advice. Every writer must think of their intended audience and indeed write towards them. Insulting your audience by assuming they are stupid is not a solution. Rather, writing clearly by reducing complexity is a well-explored topic that has few direct linkages to spoken English and general vernacular, colloquialisms, and informalities. You can find dozens of books on the subject and even algorithms that will process your writing, searching for complexities.

As a final note, I now live abroad most of the year and encounter many Americans, Brits, Aussies, and other "Anglo" ex-pats. I have fluency in the local language and I often play the role of translator from spoken English to non-Anglos, in English to people with near native level proficiency in English. In other words, I translate English to English because so many people do not speak clear, understandable, and engaging English. I rarely am asked about written English from anyone remotely competent as writer. There is often overlap between the two, such as in the workplace.

Paul Graham should be ashamed for providing such bad advice. I am sorry, but this article comes off as lordly pseudo-academia from someone who may be a decent investor but is surely not a good writer. I have been reading things from Paul Graham for years and while the subjects sometimes are not bad, he is a terrible writer. I can respect certain things about Graham, but his writing and desire to abuse his position to spout nonsense is not one of them. Please stick to investing hoards of cash and stop planting dangerous seeds in your younger audience members in particular.

I agree, simplifying would be great. You do realize, however, that a large part of the legal profession is to intentionally write broadly, imprecisely, and flexibly to avoid traps. Other kinds of legal writing are intentionally precise in some clauses so as to add complexity to deliberately avoid immediate comprehension.