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

261–270 of 282 posts

Re: Write like you talk

#261

Post by pedalpete »

amk_ wrote: post #174
pedalpete wrote: post #40

How about documentation? I was thinking about this the other day, as I was documenting an api, and I was writing as if I was speaking, explaining how I thought about the problem rather than just the end-point details. How do people feel about this. Here's an example, but I didn't push the updates I made yesterday. https://github.com/favor/it When I wrote for the high school paper, people always commented on how my wr…

The linked documentation bounces between using 'I' and 'you' as subjects for examples. Get rid of the references to yourself in the docs -- the documentation should be neutral. Take the reader's perspective if a subject is required. In day to day business like setting development priorities or responding to issues on Github, you can use 'I'.

thanks for the feedback, I just wasn't sure about tone in docs, it's the first time I've really had to document something like this for public consumption. I will redo it.

Re: Write like you talk

#262

Post by Nexxxeh »

pbhjpbhj wrote: post #253
__abc wrote: post #230

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Depends. The main point the author in the OP doesn't seem to understand:

Know your audience.

"Dumb down" your writing, but only if it will help you communicate with the person (or people) you're targeting. Else there's no benefit to it.

Re: Write like you talk

#263

Post by Nexxxeh »

S4M wrote: post #193
guybrushT wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One of the best (and incidentally, very recent) illustration of your point was seen an AMA by Bill Murray [1]. The Reddit mod was simply transcribing sentences as Bill was saying them. Soon after, /u/BillMurrayTranslator (some random guy) rewrote the exact same content in a more coherent, punctuated and editorialized manner. The difference in readability is stark! Bill's answers were quite hard to understand because…

The link you submitted seems to work for mobile only, for some reason I couldn't open it from my computer, so I give the non mobile version below [0]. Apart from that, I did compare a few of the original answers from Bill Murray and with their translated versions, but I don't think the translator makes it clearer, he just added some punctuation and some context (pause, laughs, etc.). [0] https://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA…

If you just went to that thread 15 hours ago, you did not read the original answers. It was vastly different before it was edited. It was unreadable for me.

68 words in the opening sentence for one of the replies.

Re: Write like you talk

#264

Post by Nexxxeh »

guybrushT wrote: post #138
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…

One of the best (and incidentally, very recent) illustration of your point was seen an AMA by Bill Murray [1]. The Reddit mod was simply transcribing sentences as Bill was saying them. Soon after, /u/BillMurrayTranslator (some random guy) rewrote the exact same content in a more coherent, punctuated and editorialized manner. The difference in readability is stark! Bill's answers were quite hard to understand because…

"The Reddit mod was simply transcribing sentences as Bill was saying them."

To clarify, it's widely accepted it was a Reddit admin, /u/808sandhotcakes, that was responsible for the original transcription of Bill's responses.

As has been pointed out in your child posts, the top level responses have since been edited and have improved drastically.

The Admin's username has also been removed from the OP.

To give a better idea, check this archive.is of before the edits. [1]

>Uh yes I know Tom, we called him co back then cause he was a hipster, I sent someone looking for Co looking for him years ago, this person found him and he was running for office, the person I sent was not someone your father wanted to be affiliated with while running a campaign, he was a funny guy if you're his kid you're probably funny too. Tell your Dad to lay low, his past is gonna catch up with him.

>Uh, yes, I know Tom. We called him "Co" back then, cause he was a hipster. I sent someone looking for Co looking for him years ago, this person found him, and he was running for office. The person I sent was not someone your father wanted to be affiliated with while running a campaign. He was a funny guy. If you're his kid, you're probably funny too. Tell your Dad to lay low, his past is gonna catch up with him.

The contrast between this AMA and his previous one is stark.(The previous one [2] handled by the well loved admin /u/chooter, who was recently fired.)

One should write in an audience appropriate way. The Bill Murray AMA was written by someone with no real understanding of written English.

[1] https://archive.is/yBqcH#selection-2809.0-2809.408

[2] https://www.reddit.com/comments/1vhjag

Re: Write like you talk

#265

Post by robbfitzsimmons »

vonnik wrote: post #82

The PG headline is really the first half of a larger sentence: Write like you talk, and try to talk in concise, plain language. If you have trouble doing this, the Hemingway App might help. http://www.hemingwayapp.com/ There are a lot of problems with the way people write. Some writers are too writerly, some are trapped in journalese or legalese, most are too vague. But better than any -ese is being able to communica…

Came here to recommend Hemingway. Even if you keep these values in mind, with a linter it's much easier to do.

I haven't yet found a Chrome extension which does Hemingway-esque linting on all text input fields, like Gmail or (god forbid) comment sections. Somebody (maybe me) should make this.

Re: Write like you talk

#266

Post by jnem »

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…

So true. I've gotten in the habit of writing copious notes during meetings, and write everything down verbatim. When I first started doing this, I was astounded to find how disorganized most individuals train of thought appeared to be.

What's really interesting is our ability to comprehend the jumble that comes out of our mouth. On one hand, it's impressive what our brains can do to process this jumble, on the other, totally depressing how inadequate we are at stringing together oration.

Re: Write like you talk

#267

Post by PantaloonFlames »

douche wrote: post #155
shanusmagnus wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Other replies mention the atypical preparedness of presentation text; but I have noticed what you describe in normal life, in normal conversation: some people do indeed seem to speak as if they'd had a chance to revise the sentences / paragraphs in advance. Is it that they care more, and a lifetime's practice has resulted in that kind of automatic organization?

Quite often, I'll have run through a whole series of variations on the probable avenues that a conversation or meeting could take. If you deal regularly with the other party in the conversation, you can often predict with pretty good accuracy what they are going to say. Most spoken communication is just trudging through the same well-established ruts, and throwing out the same sound-bite loops. Eventually you get to…

> Most spoken communication is just trudging through the same well-established ruts, and throwing out the same sound-bite loops.

You're hanging out with the wrong people. Or something.

> when subject X comes up, Bob is going to deploy his well-worn chestnut that you've heard 147 times before,

You should stop hanging with Bob. There are other people out there who have real conversations about what's going on with them, their view of current events, their new ideas for what ought to be done, their new inspirations. . .

I think the more likely and plausible explanation for why some people sound more prepared when speaking is because... they simply are better at it. They've practiced thinking through things, and are adept at putting thought into words. They've developed the think-and-communicate muscle, through lots and lots of practice, and now they can use that muscle with greater effectiveness than your average bear.

Re: Write like you talk

#268

Post by PantaloonFlames »

flashman wrote: post #41
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 a very good point, because when you're talking, like you'd talk to another person I mean, your turn at speaking generally flows into a single large sentence, which is typical turn-taking behaviour, because in a conversation the other person is always looking for cues that it's their turn to speak, and so you ah have to keep going even if it means you've wandered away from your original point.

Which is very interesting, because, in many cases you'll find people who are presenting to large groups, say, an auditorium full of people, or even just a conference room of willing attendees, in a situation in which the speaker is expected to speak at some length , and it is understood and to be expected that the audience will remain silent in order to receive the message, even in those cases, speakers will continue to use the your-turn, my-turn habits of speech, with the blank-filling um's and ah's and so on.

Re: Write like you talk

#269

Post by PantaloonFlames »

charlesism wrote: post #190
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…

Somehow you managed to miss the point entirely. The point is not "use bad grammar, slang, and swear words." It's just " don't put on airs! " That's it! Not putting on airs means: don't use jargon if the meaning of your sentence doesn't call for it, and don't use awkward turns of phrase to make yourself sound smarter. That's easier said than done, but it goes a long way toward making your writing easy to understand.

"put on airs" - what exactly does that mean?

These airs, where would one obtain them? And on what would one put these airs? on what?

Re: Write like you talk

#270

Post by PantaloonFlames »

alecdbrooks wrote: post #57

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…

> It might not be Paul Graham's favorite style, but that doesn't make it bad writing.

and what is wrong with mixing a little poetry, or poetric license anyway, into regular prose?

Written language is different than spoken language.

But Graham's guideline is generally good advice.

Post reply on HN