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

Write Like You Talk (2015)

paulgraham.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 152 posts

Re: Write Like You Talk (2015)

#101

Post by mediascreen »

auggierose wrote: post #98
mediascreen wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Slightly off topic: What's with HN and the word "orthogonal"? I'm not a native English speaker, but I read a lot in English and it seems like the word is extremely common on HN compared to anywhere else. Isn't usually "unrelated" a more descriptive and even a more precise word in most HN discussions? (The parent comment here does seem to make a point using axes, so maybe it is more appropriate here?)

I see what you did there, but I will bite: Orthogonal does not mean unrelated. Take two vectors in the plane. Them being orthogonal means that they have a 90 degree angle between them, so if you know the direction of one of them, the direction of the other one is severely restricted to two choices. So these vectors are very much RELATED. It's just that they are related in a way that makes them maximally different in…

I understand that orthogonal and unrelated have different meanings. What I'm wondering is: Isn't "orthogonal" much more common on HN (18388 matches in search) than in other places?

I suspect that "orthogonal" is a word programmers fall in love with during some CS class and then overuse because it sounds sciency.

Re: Write Like You Talk (2015)

#102

Post by jameshart »

curo wrote: post #37
texaslonghorn5 wrote: post #4

> But perhaps worst of all, the complex sentences and fancy words give you, the writer, the false impression that you're saying more than you actually are. Disagree. When you're writing / reading, it's much easier to parse complex sentences. It's also much easier to express a cohesive, complex thought this way compared to a meandering, directionless sentence. And the whole point of "fancy words" are to succinctly con…

There is something exhausting about that example sentence. Yes, different words embed different meanings. For instance, it's clear to me what Paul means by "fancy" and "complex." The author William Zinsser makes both points: choose great words and write like you speak. But I agree that somewhere out there, beyond the horizon, there's a time and place for the word 'mercurial.'

Perhaps pg favors git over mercurial.

Re: Write Like You Talk (2015)

#103

Post by kaashif »

paulpauper wrote: post #31
kaashif wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If I was forced to have an audience for ten years I’d just be saying crazy shit all the time. There is an alternative. Just blog without an audience. Don't keep any web server logs (or don't look at them). Delete the analytics. The fact that someone theoretically could be reading my blog is enough motivation to write something understandable (rather than just scrawling some gibberish in a notebook), but whether tha…

There is an alternative. Just blog without an audience. Don't keep any web server logs (or don't look at them). Delete the analytics. That depends on your individual preferences I guess. I think having an audience is at least an indication that you're succeeding at it. Otherwise you have a diary, not a blog.

> I think having an audience is at least an indication that you're succeeding at it.

If the goal is to get an audience, then having an audience is a success.

If the goal is primarily to crystallize your own understanding of things, write thoughts up in a coherent way, or something else which doesn't necessarily involve an audience, then you can have success without an audience.

> Otherwise you have a diary, not a blog.

If the blog is still there for people to see, it changes the kinds of things you write. I don't feel comfortable posting half-incomprehensible jumbled thoughts with partially worked examples, filled with mistakes on a blog, whereas I would feel comfortable writing that privately.

This does definitely depend on individual preferences and whether one can motivate themselves to write well without even the possibility of an audience. I can't.

Re: Write Like You Talk (2015)

#104

Post by paulpauper »

Success at writing has almost everything to do with who is doing the writing, not the quality of the writing or how clear it is. Michael Crichton demonstrated this himself at Harvard by turning in an essay written by Orwell, unbeknownst to the teacher, and got a "B-". I have seen this as well. Why do Glen Greenwald articles get so much traffic even though it's just basic political commentary? Because of his brand. Writing and the 'creative arts' has always been sorta a popularity contest or clique. That's why it's called a 'literary scene' or an 'art scene'. At least STEM is not so bad in this regard.

Re: Write Like You Talk (2015)

#105

Post by gofreddygo »

texaslonghorn5 wrote: post #4

> But perhaps worst of all, the complex sentences and fancy words give you, the writer, the false impression that you're saying more than you actually are. Disagree. When you're writing / reading, it's much easier to parse complex sentences. It's also much easier to express a cohesive, complex thought this way compared to a meandering, directionless sentence. And the whole point of "fancy words" are to succinctly con…

These second order words convey the precise meaning. They exist for a reason.

Authors ought have the responsibility to think through their message and intent and are free to use the most precise words to convey their thoughts. These words stand justified; for expressing delicate emotions you need their help.

P.S. I had to lookup "decadence" I could guess the meaning. It was worth the effort.

Re: Write Like You Talk (2015)

#106

Post by auggierose »

mediascreen wrote: post #101
auggierose wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I see what you did there, but I will bite: Orthogonal does not mean unrelated. Take two vectors in the plane. Them being orthogonal means that they have a 90 degree angle between them, so if you know the direction of one of them, the direction of the other one is severely restricted to two choices. So these vectors are very much RELATED. It's just that they are related in a way that makes them maximally different in…

I understand that orthogonal and unrelated have different meanings. What I'm wondering is: Isn't "orthogonal" much more common on HN (18388 matches in search) than in other places? I suspect that "orthogonal" is a word programmers fall in love with during some CS class and then overuse because it sounds sciency.

I think that orthogonal is a more visual word than unrelated. It invokes the image of axes pointing into different directions. I suspect many programmers just like this aspect of the word, while unrelated is somewhat bland, and also usually wrong.

Re: Write Like You Talk (2015)

#107

Post by shigawire »

mpalczewski wrote: post #57
paulpauper wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Agree. Fancy' words can add flavor to the writing and help avoid repetition, and also are more precise. If you are writing warning labels or instructions, then maybe simpler is better. But otherwise, I don't think it is a problem..

As a reader I would prefer the writer not repeat themselves and write less, rather than try to find some fancy way of not “sounding” repetitive, but in reality finding yet another way of repeating. I prefer actual repetition to that. More precise words aren’t always better either. Having someone easily grasp what you are saying works much better for conveying information. Complicated writing is lazy writing. “If I ha…

If I'm reading a short article maybe I'd agree.

If I'm reading a longer novel I want to be exposed to older, lesser used words. I think it is fun and interesting to learn new words.

Re: Write Like You Talk (2015)

#108

Post by c0mptonFP »

mediascreen wrote: post #84
c0mptonFP wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You hit the nail on the head, mostly. > then you read the room and go with the layer of abstraction needed. Finding the right layer of abstraction is orthogonal to the write-speak axis. When speaking to my colleagues, I use technical jargon that no layman could understand. None of the topics are simple, or strongly abstracted. The issue of write vs. speak is more about the sentence structure, sentence length, and bre…

Slightly off topic: What's with HN and the word "orthogonal"? I'm not a native English speaker, but I read a lot in English and it seems like the word is extremely common on HN compared to anywhere else. Isn't usually "unrelated" a more descriptive and even a more precise word in most HN discussions? (The parent comment here does seem to make a point using axes, so maybe it is more appropriate here?)

Unrelated means two things are not related in any sense. Orthogonal means two things are unrelated with respect to a specific property.

Unrelated is more general, and less precise. Orthogonal restricts the "unrelatedness" to the specific property being discussed. It's also a very visual and intuitive word.

It's not only HN btw.

Re: Write Like You Talk (2015)

#109

Post by greenie_beans »

spacedcowboy wrote: post #2

I like a lot of what Graham writes, but I fundamentally disagree with him on this one. Spoken language is the JIT compiler of information transferral. It’s spur-of-the-moment; it’s stream-of-consciousness; it gets the job done by stripping away a lot of nuance and complexity. Written language is more subtle, more considered, more edited - he states himself that he writes then edits - in his case to make it more “spok…

i bet you talk exactly like this :~p
Post reply on HN