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

251–260 of 282 posts

Re: Write like you talk

#251

Post by eeeeeeeeeeeee »

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…

Yep, if you don't read it out loud you self edit/ignore things in your head that become painfully obvious when you read it aloud.

Re: Write like you talk

#252

Post by anonbanker »

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 is especially interesting, as pg uses a very creative variation on "Um"[1] (as a method of making people focus on the poigniant/funny statement he just made). I'm not sure if this is a case of someone weaponizing their verbal tic, but I think pg should probably add it to his actual writings.

1. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ii1jcLg-eIQ

Re: Write like you talk

#253

Post by pbhjpbhj »

__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).

This is funny, perhaps like others here, I find I usually have to reduce the complexity of my speech compared to my internal dialogue: particularly in using more commonplace vocabulary. Sadly barely anyone I know (including my wife) understands half the words I use. Indeed sometimes I don't really grok them myself; my brain just finds them most apposite.

So should I write as I [find I need to] speak or should I write with my natural lexicon?

Re: Write like you talk

#254

Post by vinayak147 »

Writing something (that is worth reading) in simple words is very hard. I believe that clear thinking plays a bigger role than semantics. When I am confused about a topic, I tend to write about it using complex arguments with long sentences and long words.

PG speaks and writes about startups with more clarity than most people. It is because his thinking on startups has greater clarity/conviction than most people. From my perspective, there seems to be no shortcut or semantic trick to clear writing.

Re: Write like you talk

#255

Post by randallsquared »

darkerside wrote: post #148
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…

An example of pseudo-spoken tone from the article: "The fact that this seems worthy of comment shows how rarely people manage to write in spoken language." That's a simple phrase to read, but I'm pretty sure it would fly right over my head if somebody dropped it in casual conversation.

I think this is an important point: most of what people verbally say is redundant noise, because in speech you have to account for people who only started really listening partway, or who need something said repeatedly in different ways to understand it. In text, the reader is free to stop and think about something, or just go back and re-read. This means that even if you're writing conversationally, it's easy and not too burdensome to compress long, rambling sentences into succinct ones that convey the same information.

Re: Write like you talk

#256

Post by charlesism »

bshimmin wrote: post #196
charlesism wrote: post #184

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm a big fan of Orwell, and yes he "wrote like a good journalist," since he was a journalist. Some people would say the world's best :) Gotta say, I haven't heard a whole lot of people championing the passive voice! If you have an idea to communicate, it strikes me as strange that you would want to leave out information - which is my biggest problem with the passive voice. "Is rumored to be" is a shifty way a writer…

Here's a great piece from Geoffrey Pullum (fairly pre-eminent linguist) on the passive voice: http://www.lel.ed.ac.uk/~gpullum/passive_loathing.pdf I think the discussion on this article has been very good, actually, and I'm not sure phrases like "intellectual seriousness" really add much to the debate.

"Intellectual seriousness" is a bad choice of words. Sorry, my irritation got the better of me. And to be more charitable to you, while I think writers should avoid the passive voice, I also don't believe there is any rule so important that one can never break it. The more important thing should always be to get one's point across.

Re: Write like you talk

#257

Post by charlesism »

bshimmin wrote: post #196
charlesism wrote: post #184

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm a big fan of Orwell, and yes he "wrote like a good journalist," since he was a journalist. Some people would say the world's best :) Gotta say, I haven't heard a whole lot of people championing the passive voice! If you have an idea to communicate, it strikes me as strange that you would want to leave out information - which is my biggest problem with the passive voice. "Is rumored to be" is a shifty way a writer…

Here's a great piece from Geoffrey Pullum (fairly pre-eminent linguist) on the passive voice: http://www.lel.ed.ac.uk/~gpullum/passive_loathing.pdf I think the discussion on this article has been very good, actually, and I'm not sure phrases like "intellectual seriousness" really add much to the debate.

That essay makes some good points. In my previous comment I was thinking mainly of sentences like "Mistakes were made."

Re: Write like you talk

#258

Post by OJFord »

eecks wrote: post #212
OJFord wrote: post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Because when you talk you do not (and indeed cannot) do that.

(I would argue preparing a speech does not count, since you are then by definition talking like you have written).

Re: Write like you talk

#259

Post by mark-r »

thedevil wrote: post #226
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…

It's not just word choice, but style that matters.

Re: Write like you talk

#260

Post by thedevil »

mark-r wrote: post #259
thedevil wrote: post #226

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

It's not just word choice, but style that matters.

I definitely agree.
Post reply on HN