111–120 of 282 posts
Rather than taking writing advice from a programmer/venture capitalist, I recommend Steering the Craft, by Ursula Le Guin, which will help ground any writing you might do in solid understanding of the "tools" you have available as a writer-- pace, grammar, the sound of words, and so forth
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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, t…
If natural speech were a modern programming language, prewriting would be analogous to compiling to bytecode. Then you JIT compile it again when you speak. You rarely go directly from source code to machine language, perhaps because there's so much diversity among the "machines" (humans).
Heck, I even "transpile" my talks from time to time. The last time I gave a presentation, my paper was written in English but I had to present it in Korean! Needless to say, that wasted a lot of brain cycles.
>I found that I could cut that scrollwork or ornament out and throw it away and start with the first true simple declarative sentence I had written.
[1]: Examples include http://railstutorial.org/book, http://tauday.com/tau-manifesto, and http://learnenough.com/command-line-tutorial
[1]: http://forum.wordreference.com/threads/parla-come-mangi.1975...
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…
I actually like this a lot. He uses a conversational/informal style and it almost flows like a rehearsed piece of conversation: > it will always be rightly described as primitive. > . But it is upon those anonymous artists' shoulders — giants' shoulders — that He starts a sentence with But and puts dashes in for pause effects. Does he go a bit purply in his prose towards the end? Sure. I think that is the difference…
I love it when historians mix archaic language into their everyday speech for dramatic effect! It's vastly different from when ordinary people clumsily try their hand at archaism. Coming from someone who actually knows what they're saying, it feels so much more authentic and appropriate.
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…
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…
For instance, there are many cases where one would want to de-emphasize the subject, or cases where the tone should be "passive" in the sense opposite from "aggressive". If you are arguing with someone because you think they are wrong but don't want to put blame, you may want to say "It was wrong to do that" instead of "You were wrong to do that".
Another use of passive voice is for a certain dark style and more mysterious tone. A good example of this is "It was the best of times. It was the worst of times..."
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…
I actually like this a lot. He uses a conversational/informal style and it almost flows like a rehearsed piece of conversation: > it will always be rightly described as primitive. > . But it is upon those anonymous artists' shoulders — giants' shoulders — that He starts a sentence with But and puts dashes in for pause effects. Does he go a bit purply in his prose towards the end? Sure. I think that is the difference…
> >The Upper Paleolithic 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 were able to stand. Picasso himself declared: 'After Altamira, all is decadence.'
What's the point of "mercurial" or "Spaniard" being included? Irrelevant detail that, frankly, trips my tongue up when reading (and when my tongue trips, I stumble slightly even while silently reading).
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…