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

221–230 of 282 posts

Re: Write like you talk

#221

Post by rquantz »

hugh4 wrote: post #172
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…

>(iii) If it is possible to cut a word out, always cut it out. If it is possible to cut a word, always cut it. If possible to cut a word, cut it. If possible, cut. But of course "if possible" is implied, he wouldn't be advising you to do anything impossible, so just: Cut.

You're misunderstanding "if possible" here. It means "if it can be done while conveying all that you need to convey, and saying all that you mean." "Cut" doesn't do that.

Re: Write like you talk

#223

Post by rquantz »

archildress wrote: post #79

Seth Godin said something really similar, and I've drawn on it during periods of writer's block many times: >No one ever gets talker's block. No one wakes up in the morning, discovers he has nothing to say and sits quietly, for days or weeks, until the muse hits, until the moment is right, until all the craziness in his life has died down. Why then, is writer's block endemic? The reason we don't get talker's block is…

There is absolutely such a thing as talker's block. It's called stuttering and it's a huge problem for some people.

Edit: I am not being facetious.

Re: Write like you talk

#224

Post by RankingMember »

thedevil wrote: post #149

This is a no-brainer. At first, I thought it's not worthy of an essay because it's so obvious. But then I read the comments.

Agreed. I feel like I'm tripping over the ego of some writers trying to read their work; I can practically see them with the thesaurus out trying to make things sound grander and more complicated than they are.

Re: Write like you talk

#225

Post by tjr »

visarga wrote: post #180
gh02t wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> read what you have written OUT LOUD I use Text to Speech to listen to all my posts before I submit them. I also use TTS and read at the same time to improve my attention. TTS imposes a constant pace and makes the message more pregnant.

I recently received a lengthy email of minor grammar errors in a programming manual I had written. I thanked the diligent bug reporter, and expressed surprise that so many mistakes had gone unnoticed for as long as they had. He told me that he was blind, and rather than reading the manual, he listened to it through a TTS system, thus catching some problems that might have been easy to miss visually.

Re: Write like you talk

#226

Post by thedevil »

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…

I don't think Paul Graham meant ramble, use "uhs" and "ums" and and expletives as you and other commenters have said.

I think the point was to use common and simple wording so that people can understand without doing a lot of work. People have a lot more practice understanding common and simple words. So it's much easier for them to read, no matter how smart they are.

I think this was pretty clear in PG's essay, but the headline probably threw people off. Maybe he should have said it differently, such as "Make your writing as simple as your speech."

Re: Write like you talk

#227

Post by mironathetin »

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…

"... OUT LOUD."

Thomas Mann did that (among other authors). He used to read his work to his family. Just look, how complex and hard to read some of his later work still is. And how complex the sentences are structured.

It is no guarantee, if you don't also think simple and clearly. But it certainly helps.

Re: Write like you talk

#228

Post by thedevil »

thedevil wrote: post #149

This is a no-brainer. At first, I thought it's not worthy of an essay because it's so obvious. But then I read the comments.

To clarify:

I don't think Paul Graham meant ramble, use "uhs" and "ums" and expletives as some commenters have said.

I think the point was to use common and simple wording so that people can understand without doing a lot of work. People have a lot more practice understanding common and simple words. So it's much easier for them to read, no matter how smart they are.

Using uncommon or complicated words makes you feel smart, and might make some people think you're smart, but it makes your writing miserable work to read.

I think this was pretty clear in PG's essay, but the headline probably threw people off. Maybe he should have said it differently, such as "Make your writing as simple as your speech."

Re: Write like you talk

#230

Post by __abc »

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…

Isn't he basically saying use your natural lexicon vs. an artificial one (typically used to make oneself sound more educated).
Post reply on HN