Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Mary Dash's Writing Tips

plainlanguage.gov

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 74 posts

Re: Mary Dash's Writing Tips

#11

Post by vharuck »

adamzegelin wrote: post #4

When is it best to use formal (bureaucratic) vs informal (conversational) language? When writing reports and documentation I prefer formal language, but for blogs I switch over to informal.

In my experience writing reports on public health data, it depends on the audience and their intent. Lay people will skip (or worse, misinterpret) any paragraph containing "statistically significant." But the epidemiologists will want enough details to completely recreate my numbers.

I've settled on a mix: plain language that expresses intent and the key points (not just using a thesaurus to replace jargon). And at the end, a hyper-detailed technical notes, methodology, and references section. The goal is any expert who's read the tech notes can read the report and understand the assumptions and math behind each statement.

Personally, I like this kind of reporting. Read the tech notes to check that it's reliable, then read the report with peace of mind. I was going to "translate" the jargon into basic concepts anyway, so this saves a step.

Re: Mary Dash's Writing Tips

#12

Post by combatentropy »

adamzegelin wrote: post #4

When is it best to use formal (bureaucratic) vs informal (conversational) language? When writing reports and documentation I prefer formal language, but for blogs I switch over to informal.

I would say never use either. Strive to be plain. By plain, I mean both clear and unpretentious. This kind of writing doesn't have to sound informal.

This advice is not my own. It is ancient, and you could say it is the gist of books like The King's English by the brothers Fowler (1906), The Elements of Style by Strunk and White (1959), On Writing Well by William Zinsser (1976), and The Sense of Style by Steven Pinker (2014).

Bureaucratic language to me means wordiness, vagueness, and indirection. Conversational is often wordy too and likewise short on substance. But while bureaucratic sounds like it came from a robot, conversational puts the writer too much in the spotlight.

The reader comes to a piece of writing to learn something. The purpose of writing is to help the reader, as quickly and clearly as possible. The techniques in the books I mentioned, or on plainlanguage.gov, are meant to help you do just that.

Re: Mary Dash's Writing Tips

#13

Post by hirundo »

combatentropy wrote: post #12
adamzegelin wrote: post #4

When is it best to use formal (bureaucratic) vs informal (conversational) language? When writing reports and documentation I prefer formal language, but for blogs I switch over to informal.

I would say never use either. Strive to be plain. By plain, I mean both clear and unpretentious. This kind of writing doesn't have to sound informal. This advice is not my own. It is ancient, and you could say it is the gist of books like The King's English by the brothers Fowler (1906), The Elements of Style by Strunk and White (1959), On Writing Well by William Zinsser (1976), and The Sense of Style by Steven Pinke…

Like Paul Graham.

Re: Mary Dash's Writing Tips

#14

Post by danso »

Tangent: plainlanguage.gov has been around since at least 1998 [0], and had the same design from 2005 [1] until late 2017. Hadn't checked the site for years (until seeing this today), so great to see it with a fresh look along with good content.

[0] https://web.archive.org/web/19981111185743/https://plainlang...

[1] https://web.archive.org/web/20051113011109/http://www.plainl...

Re: Mary Dash's Writing Tips

#15

Post by jfengel »

I find the "avoid gobbledygook" instruction a little odd. It's really about adopting a less formal register, which is fine, but words like "additional" and "purchase" aren't really obscure.

From the examples, it seems to be more about avoiding French- and Latin-derived words, and using Germanic-derived ones instead. We do tend to use our Norman root words in legal and other formal registers, and Anglo-Saxon roots do have a more active feel to them. And some of the examples are best left to legal documents ("pursuant", "concur"). It's probably decent advice to a novice writer, especially one who has been learning from academic or government writing and picked up an unnecessary sense of formality.

But they're hardly "gobbledygook". They're perfectly cromulent words, with shades of meaning different from their "synonyms", and can be used to enhance writing rather than obscure it.

Re: Mary Dash's Writing Tips

#16

Post by Veen »

combatentropy wrote: post #12
adamzegelin wrote: post #4

When is it best to use formal (bureaucratic) vs informal (conversational) language? When writing reports and documentation I prefer formal language, but for blogs I switch over to informal.

I would say never use either. Strive to be plain. By plain, I mean both clear and unpretentious. This kind of writing doesn't have to sound informal. This advice is not my own. It is ancient, and you could say it is the gist of books like The King's English by the brothers Fowler (1906), The Elements of Style by Strunk and White (1959), On Writing Well by William Zinsser (1976), and The Sense of Style by Steven Pinke…

This is generally good advice, but there are occasions in which the signalling value of jargon, formality, or complexity outweighs the value of clarity. If your primary goal is to appeal to an audience that values formality, it makes sense to be formal. Clarity is important, but it doesn’t override “write for your audience”.

Re: Mary Dash's Writing Tips

#18

Post by puzzledobserver »

I concede that people have a tendency to overuse the passive voice, perhaps to appear less assertive, but... I find this injunction against the passive voice simplistic. The active and passive versions of a sentence _mean_ different things, and one cannot blindly substitute one for the other. Compare:

1. There was a cat in the house. She had not been fed by her owner that morning. She meowed loudly at the passing postman.

2. There was a cat in the house. Her owner hadn't fed her that morning. She meowed loudly at the passing postman.

Also, who is the intended audience of style guides such as this? One's style in a romantic letter is necessarily different from the tone used in a scientific paper, both of which are different from how one would tell a story to a friend. Without nuance, a one-size-fits-all approach to linguistic style will destroy much that is beautiful about the world.

Re: Mary Dash's Writing Tips

#19

Post by nixpulvis »

puzzledobserver wrote: post #18

I concede that people have a tendency to overuse the passive voice, perhaps to appear less assertive, but... I find this injunction against the passive voice simplistic. The active and passive versions of a sentence _mean_ different things, and one cannot blindly substitute one for the other. Compare: 1. There was a cat in the house. She had not been fed by her owner that morning. She meowed loudly at the passing pos…

Well put...

I find your first example "stays in key" if you will. Or literally, with the subject.

However, in the context of getting shit done, I'm thinking active is generally best.

Re: Mary Dash's Writing Tips

#20

Post by sharedfrog »

draw_down wrote: post #9

The thing about avoiding passive voice drives me batty- not just here, that admonition is everywhere. Sometimes it's useful, that's why it exists. Using it does not (necessarily) indicate a moral failing.

> that admonition is everywhere

Generally speaking, I think it's because this advice is very easy to remember and repeat. Passive voice is easy to spot. Someone reading to look for errors can easily go "Aha! You did a naughty here." because they were once told that "passive = bad".

Post reply on HN