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

231–240 of 282 posts

Re: Write like you talk

#231

Post by gh02t »

__abc wrote: post #230
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…

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

I think so, but I was more thinking about what people actually do when you tell them "write like you speak." Most people I've seen then proceed to dump stuff onto the page and it's even worse.

The advantage of reading it out loud is (I'm guessing) that you process it with a different part of your brain. When you just read it, the words are your own and you don't process it the same way, whereas when you hear it the words in a sense sound external and it is easier to hear where it sounds awkward.

Re: Write like you talk

#232

Post by gh02t »

mironathetin wrote: post #227
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…

"... 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.

Yes, clarity is not always the goal in writing, especially fiction. I can imagine Mann sitting down reading his drafts to his family, who are all staring blankly at the ceiling, anxiously awaiting the end.

I think this is more of a technique to help people recognize when what they have written is bad. All too often do I get a student who is perfectly well spoken and who has obviously edited their work turn in something that is a mess. When you point out mistakes, they are usually like "wow, how the hell did I overlook something like that?"

It can be hard to recognize that something we wrote is bad, because we know internally what it's supposed to say. Something about the verbal and auditory processes in our brains seem to help bypass that though. It's by no means the only thing needed, just helpful.

Re: Write like you talk

#233

Post by gh02t »

dspillett wrote: post #209
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 sometimes use this when not writing anything that is destined to directly go to other people in order to help my understanding. When working on a confusing problem I try to write it down as if I was explaining it to another person, and verbalise in my head what I have written (I'm liking the TTS solution someone mentioned elsewhere in the thread, I might have to bring some head…

My adage has always been "if you can't teach it to someone with a minimal background, you don't really understand it." If I really need to study a topic, I prepare as if I was going to give a lecture on it. That usually makes it painfully obvious where the holes in what I know are.

Re: Write like you talk

#235

Post by incepted »

charlesism wrote: post #195
incepted wrote: post #177

> Here's a simple trick for getting more people to read what you write: write in spoken language. Speaking of doing what you preach: stop adding manual in your articles, it makes them unreadable on mobile and wide monitors and it basically displays a total ignorance of how the web is supposed to work (let readers control how your articles appear to them).

"How the web is supposed to work" changes every five seconds. is one of the oldest tags in HTML. Maybe it's wrong this year. I remember the year when Tables were wrong, too.

The point remains that you should let the browser reflow the text based on the width of the browser.


makes this impossible.

Re: Write like you talk

#236

Post by ci5er »

bbarn wrote: post #27

I had to look up "abstruse". I understood it's meaning from context, but wasn't sure if it was a portmanteau of abstract and obtuse, or an actual word. I've honestly never heard it in my life, and wouldn't stop someone saying it in a sentence, but it did stop my reading. That made me wonder, does the fact that you sometimes have to listen to the spoken word over-estimate the impact the same words will have when writt…

I use this word a lot in written critiques of way-too-clever segments of code at review time. Is there a better word to use instead in this situation?

Re: Write like you talk

#237

Post by sarreph »

Perhaps a reason why this works so well is due to most people's way of subvocalizing[1] material that they read.

If you're saying an article out loud in your head as you read it, then it sure does make sense for it to sound like an actual voice is saying it!

[1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subvocalization

Re: Write like you talk

#238

Post by bambax »

Writing and talking are two very different things; it's bad advice to tell people to write as they talk. What makes talking and writing so very different are, at least, that:

1) Writing is a monologue; talking is a conversation. It's extremely rare one would talk in the form of monologue, except when giving a speech (and even in that case, the audience can usually ask questions).

2) When talking with someone, you have an immense array of non-verbal communication tools at your disposal (body language, eye contact, hands movements, speed of talking, pauses, etc. etc. etc.); in writing you have none of those, so everything you want to say, you have to write down.

Of course one should use simple, usual words, and (maybe) short sentences. But that has to be the oldest "tip" there is, in any language; there's even a .gov website dedicated to it: http://www.plainlanguage.gov/howto/guidelines/FederalPLGuide...

Re: Write like you talk

#239

Post by agarden »

wyclif wrote: post #139

"To my writing classes I used later to open by saying that anybody who could talk could also write. Having cheered them up with this easy-to-grasp ladder, I then replaced it with a huge and loathsome snake: “How many people in this class, would you say, can talk? I mean really talk?” That had its duly woeful effect. I told them to read every composition aloud, preferably to a trusted friend. The rules are much the sa…

This seems much better advice.

I found the opposite of PG. I discovered that when I worked on talking the way I wrote, my speech became much better and more interesting.

Now, PG speaks off the cuff pretty well. So I suppose if people find you well spoken, it makes sense to try to write more like you talk. But if you write better than you speak, make your speech more like your writing.

Post reply on HN