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

211–220 of 282 posts

Re: Write like you talk

#211

Post by mattlutze »

> Before I publish a new essay, I read it out loud and fix everything that doesn't sound like conversation. I even fix bits that are phonetically awkward; I don't know if that's necessary, but it doesn't cost much.

This is the key bit. It's not so much "write like you talk" and more "write like you could present it."

So much writing isn't accessible because the author misses this cardinal rule. Even the most dense, formal scientific writing can be made clearer if the author or editor reads it aloud and fixes the awkward parts.

I helped content editing for an academic journal back in the day. A big part of our jobs was helping the authors bring their voice out into the papers. A lot of writers, novice and expert alike, have an idea of what an "expert" in their field should sound like. The result is stiff and manufactured prose that too often ends up being inaccessible for anyone else.

But, as soon as you clue an author in on how their personal voice can come through an article, you see a shift in the quality and clarity of the work.

The articles, text books and other writing I learn the best from, and come back to, ultimately sound in my head as if the author and I are speaking aloud. It's the real differentiator in sounding like an amateur or an expert.

Re: Write like you talk

#212

Post by eecks »

OJFord wrote: post #154
rdancer wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> "thanks to .. for reading drafts of this" What's the Latin for that?

Ha! Mine's not strong enough to say, though I suspect it would only be 3-4 words ('with-thanks-to .. for-the-reading-of' if you see what I mean). I didn't mean that sentence amused me for uneconomical English, but that it was funny to think about a piece titled 'write like you talk' going through multiple draft stages.

Why is that funny to you when he suggested putting your writing through draft stages to try achieve the "write like you talk" style?

Re: Write like you talk

#214

Post by bikeshack »

So I should talk in Legal English all day? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_English which is the reverse of writing as one talks, because the Rule of Law surrounds us always, except for the criminals who flout it repeatedly throughout their day.

When I write, I self censor all the time, and it is no different when I talk. We forgive and forget. We silo only certain words to certain areas of the world. "What happens in Vegas" etc. Language only becomes a problem when it is committed permanently to the footnotes of the web. You can't overlook the law aspect. You also can't so easily withdraw a statement said online.

Re: Write like you talk

#215

Post by helgeman »

I think it always depends on what your intention of communication is. Like it is said in the article. Most of the time you want to communicate to others what you are thinking. The simpler the better. I guess there is a similarity to writing code. Your machine can only handle exact commands for communication. But in human-to-human interaction there is more. Sometimes you want others to start thinking about something. Put an image in their head. Draw a comparison to let them think of the bigger picture.I dont think for that purpose spoken language is always the best way.

Re: Write like you talk

#216

Post by schoen »

unavoidable wrote: post #118
_delirium wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

Passive voice is one of those things that really irks people for some reason, mostly because their grammar school teacher taught them so. It has a lot of legitimate uses, but the knee-jerk reaction it invokes in people is bizarre. 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…

None of the examples with "It was" are grammatically passive, though.

It's striking to check out section 3 of the Pullum paper ("Fear and Loathing of the English Passive") mentioned upthread by bshimmin. Pullum gives 22 (!) examples of people criticizing texts as being "passive" when they aren't.

Edit: Pullum mentions a purported "passive style" (which, if it really exists, among other things avoids directly mentioning individual human beings' responsibility for things that happen) distinct from the "passive voice", which might be part of what you're referring to here. But "it was..." isn't a passive-voice construction.

Re: Write like you talk

#217

Post by DanBC »

trumbitta2 wrote: post #204
unavoidable wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Passive voice is one of those things that really irks people for some reason, mostly because their grammar school teacher taught them so. It has a lot of legitimate uses, but the knee-jerk reaction it invokes in people is bizarre. 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…

> "It was wrong to do that" instead of "You were wrong to do that" Technically true, because it's passive. But still, you'd be using "It was wrong to do that" because it becomes impersonal , more than passive .

What's the passive version of "you were wrong to do that"?

Re: Write like you talk

#219

Post by unavoidable »

trumbitta2 wrote: post #204
unavoidable wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Passive voice is one of those things that really irks people for some reason, mostly because their grammar school teacher taught them so. It has a lot of legitimate uses, but the knee-jerk reaction it invokes in people is bizarre. 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…

> "It was wrong to do that" instead of "You were wrong to do that" Technically true, because it's passive. But still, you'd be using "It was wrong to do that" because it becomes impersonal , more than passive .

The example doesn't really change.

> "The code was broken" instead of "You broke the code" serves the same function.

Re: Write like you talk

#220

Post by mch82 »

I often keep revising until a text-to-speech program is able to read my writing in a way that sounds natural. Following that approach led to great results in university writing courses and, recently, got me through the process of writing and officiating a wedding.

I share this because many of the comments respond to the "write like you speak" advice with statements similar to "I don't speak well, so 'write like you talk' won't work for me". We spend every day of our lives consuming spoken language and reading written language to ourselves and, as a result, we are able to recognize speech that sounds clear and well spoken. Even if you struggle to speak improvisationally, listening to what you've written can help to evaluate the understandability and flow of your writing.

Post reply on HN