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

101–110 of 282 posts

Re: Write like you talk

#101

Post by userbinator »

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…

Perhaps "talk like you write" could be better advice for some people, depending on how they write.

That said, "um and ahh" for filler is still vastly better than "like".

Re: Write like you talk

#103

Post by mildbow »

_delirium wrote: post #94
mildbow wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Here's where I think pg is coming from: 1) you are going to be writing about something you know 2) you are going to be writing to "people like you" 3) you are going to be read by, maybe as a product of 1 and 2, people at your order of expertise. Given these qualifications, it's always best to write in a conversational tone using words you would normally use. With that in mind, going through your points: (i) most peop…

> Few people use passive voice in conversations. Where did you get that from? Passive voice is extremely common in conversations. "He was acquitted of robbery" (passive) is probably more common than "The jury acquitted him of robbery" (active). "I was born in 1973" (passive) is much more common than "My mother gave birth to me in 1973" (active). "The X-Files was cancelled in 2002" (passive) vs. "Fox management cancel…

I still wouldn't be wrong: few people, not no people.

But, still all those examples seem more like a one-way broadcast/exceptions rather than a conversation or a start to a conversation rather than the body of one.

But maybe I should have said: few exploratory conversations?

Re: Write like you talk

#104

Post by foota »

biswaroop wrote: post #52
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…

> brains seem to edit I'd love to hear from NLP experts on speech vs writing from a machine's perspective. > not a representation of natural communication so much as an idealised version Written language lacks stresses and intonation. I wonder if the written dialect attempts to fill in this gap, and whether tonal languages idealize their speech differently. > conversational tone can improve formal writing about compl…

I have an interesting anecdote relating to this, one of my best friends told me the other day that she says the word "probably" as probly and even listening closely to what she says with that in mind it's still difficult to hear anything other than "probably"

Re: Write like you talk

#105

Post by logicallee »

birbal wrote: post #95
logicallee wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you mean because it's a great sentence in the context of this essay (maybe the best one in it), but you judge that you couldn't get away with saying it verbatim in conversation? (If you were explaining the idea in this essay?) Or please explain.

I actually love the sentence but I wouldn't expect it in spoken english. (That part is ironical in the sense that it goes against the core of the article.. Seems like an exception that proves the rule). Written word gives the reader more time to absorb the content than spoken word and hence I feel it is OK to use metaphorical language to make the point and make the reading experience delightful. But Paul's point is w…

Yes, you make a good point. Also, since the reader can glance up and down the page, you don't have to repeat parts you have just stated very clearly, to make sure they're still with you, as you might while you talk. (You can do it briefly however.) In all, I expect my books to sound quite different from spoken conversation, for a variety of reasons.

Re: Write like you talk

#106

Post by entelechy0 »

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…

This comment is anything but clear

Re: Write like you talk

#107

Post by optionalparens »

aWidebrant wrote: post #54

"Write like you talk" is bad advice twice: It encourages rambling, which - unlike in a conversation - the reader has no means to interrupt, and it offers no clear rules to follow while writing. Orwell's six[1] are, in my experience, much more useful: (i) Never use a metaphor, simile, or other figure of speech which you are used to seeing in print. (ii) Never use a long word where a short one will do. (iii) If it is p…

I agree these rules are useful, but I will slightly counter with the fact that these rules are conditionally useful. I would adhere to all of these except in the limited contexts stylistically that can benefit. For example, some kinds of styles of novel writing can benefit from breaking most of these, however not in every passage. Again it goes back to know your audience and your goals.

If you want people to understand and consume your writing easily, than these rules are pretty good. They are close to what is taught in journalism school as well. Journalistic writing rules are quite useful for tech articles, blog posts, social media, etc., but less useful sometimes for more exciting creative writing. Sometimes rambling and using huge words is a style and a signature of a writer. The same writer might fail miserably writing like that writing a different story that needs a more to the point, simple style.

Re: Write like you talk

#108

Post by unimpressive »

gh02t wrote: post #96
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…

Indeed, "write like you talk" is not quite the right way to go about it. In my experience that usually leads to a stream-of-consciousness mess. However, one thing I have found almost universally helps my students is similar: read what you have written OUT LOUD. Is it halting and hard to read? Confusing and obtuse? Then you should probably fix it. There seems to be some magic about actually speaking the words out loud…

I think this might be because rather than 'write how you talk', what you actually want to do is write how you would talk if you had time to say the best version of your thoughts. This means if you couldn't see yourself sitting down and saying the stuff you're writing to somebody, it's probably no good. If what you write doesn't have a natural flow when spoken from the tongue, it probably won't when people read it either.

Re: Write like you talk

#109

Post by pavornyoh »

optionalparens wrote: post #78

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 oppo…

>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.

This is very harsh. How is he abusing his position? You are taking this literally. If we are reading the same essay, Mr. Graham is not asking people to slip to lower standards, relax their language skills, etc. But rather write like they "sound". This sort of writing style will all come down to the kind of audience being catered to.

Re: Write like you talk

#110

Post by choppaface »

alecdbrooks wrote: post #57

This is good advice, but I disagree with his example. The entire paragraph reads[0]: >The Upper Palaeolithic cave art of Europe was a tradition that lasted for perhaps 20,000 years and it will always be rightly described as primitive. But it is upon those anonymous artists' shoulders — giants' shoulders — that later masters like Picasso were able to stand. The mercurial Spaniard himself declared: 'After Altamira, all…

Thanks for providing the full context. I'm a bit surprise pg would pick a rather flimsy example. Fishing for flamboyant prose? Why not pick on a tabloid.

There's a ton of implicit communication that happens in-person that is hard or impossible to duplicate in writing, even through prose. Prose serves a purpose, and I'm surprised this essay doesn't grapple with that issue.

I think what pg really meant to write is something more like: be clear, get to the point, and be authentic. If the only way to do that were to write in a conversational tone, I think we'd quickly become bored and disinterested in writing itself.

Post reply on HN