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

121–130 of 152 posts

Re: Write Like You Talk (2015)

#121

Post by elmomle »

lamontcg wrote: post #116
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…

> And the whole point of "fancy words" are to succinctly convey some nuance The vast majority of time the point of "fancy words" are for the author to display to the audience that they know the fancy words. Unless you really are genuinely talented at language and word choice, it often comes across as a transparent attempt to impress other people and often jars the reader out of the text.

For whom is PG writing here? For sharp minds who can be encouraged and eventually trusted to use nuanced words correctly, or for mediocre minds that will never do so? And if the latter, why are we discussing this article?

Re: Write Like You Talk (2015)

#122

Post by helf »

God no. “Write like you talk” is exactly what causes the drivel my poor wife has to grade all day.

She teaches college English and lit and the crap people turn in is mind blowing. They can barely string together a coherent sentence verbally and they turn around and write the same way…

And I am far from a poster child of “skilled writer”, but , damn, is it bad.

Re: Write Like You Talk (2015)

#123

Post by mikrl »

lamontcg wrote: post #116
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…

> And the whole point of "fancy words" are to succinctly convey some nuance The vast majority of time the point of "fancy words" are for the author to display to the audience that they know the fancy words. Unless you really are genuinely talented at language and word choice, it often comes across as a transparent attempt to impress other people and often jars the reader out of the text.

Why use a fancy word like bad, terrible, frightful, or vexatious when you can use the easily understood and versatile ungood?

Re: Write Like You Talk (2015)

#124

Post by alehlopeh »

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…

Somewhat relatedly, I’ve never seen the word maximal used outside of HN and crypto rags.

Re: Write Like You Talk (2015)

#125

Post by lamontcg »

elmomle wrote: post #121
lamontcg wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> And the whole point of "fancy words" are to succinctly convey some nuance The vast majority of time the point of "fancy words" are for the author to display to the audience that they know the fancy words. Unless you really are genuinely talented at language and word choice, it often comes across as a transparent attempt to impress other people and often jars the reader out of the text.

For whom is PG writing here? For sharp minds who can be encouraged and eventually trusted to use nuanced words correctly, or for mediocre minds that will never do so? And if the latter, why are we discussing this article?

> mediocre minds

A lot of the time when people use impressive sounding words they come across exactly this condescending.

And lots of smart, sharp people often don't actually like that.

Re: Write Like You Talk (2015)

#126

Post by masak »

I'm curious how this sentiment of pg's rhymes with his two languages, Arc and Bel. As a person who has written a Bel implementation, I find one of the traits the language has is that it's trying to be "straightforward" in the same way spoken language is.

Re: Write Like You Talk (2015)

#127

Post by freetime2 »

jameshart wrote: post #119
freetime2 wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would probably just omit the "mercurial Spaniard" part, which feels like fluff to me. The statement "After Altamira, all is decadence" is interesting enough that it can stand on its own without the author needing to dress it up any further or attribute it to some part of Picasso's character or nationality. Let the reader decide whether Picasso is being mercurial or how relevant it is that he is Spanish. Or if it re…

Yes, context matters. Presumably, one is raising the Picasso quote as part of attempting to make some sort of point . Perhaps, as part of that point, one might want to provide context for why this particular comment from Picasso is relevant to the argument. Communication is not the recitation of mere facts: "Picasso said 'after Altamira, all is decadence.' The ratio of the diameter and circumference of a circle is pi…

Yes I think that "mercurial" is completely unnecessary in this context, and the author probably just added it because he liked the way it sounded.

Seeing the sentence in context I like it even less. The author is apparently trying to make the point that the work of Picasso and other master painters stands on the "giant" shoulders of Paleolithic cave artists. But he doesn't give much justification other than some quote from Picasso which very well may have been made tongue-in-cheek (and doesn't really support the argument in the first place), and I guess also pointing out the fact that Altamira and Picasso are both in/from Spain.

As I said above if the goal is to make a point, then I think it is worth expanding and firming up the argument. What was Picasso's relationship to Altamira? What influence did it have on his work? Are there ideas and techniques used in Paleolithic cave paintings that Picasso also used? How about other "later masters" that he references?

Possibly the author does go into more detail in subsequent paragraphs on the impact of these cave paintings on future painters - I don't know. But based on the quote above it all feels a bit hand-wavey to me. Or like Graham warns about:

> 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.

Re: Write Like You Talk (2015)

#128

Post by mlyle »

unethical_ban wrote: post #97
tayo42 wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Fwiw Stephen King in "On Writing" also says to not use a thesaurus and just use the words you already naturally know how to use. He follows on saying your vocabulary will naturally expand as you read more.

The first sentence is about the writer; the second about the reader. If writers aren't learning new words, then readers can't learn from them. When do writers learn new words? From reading! Who writes what the writer reads? Writers. King seems to be saying "the best way to discover new words is through the labor and chance of picking up the right books and finding some words you had not read before". So all words tha…

There's a huge potential collection of words you can use. But there's also the words in the current zeitgeist that will be meaningful to your readers.

The only way you can learn these words and give them a proper weighting of "usefulness" and understand their fundamental nature is to read. Yes, you can get definitions and similar words from tomes, and even examples of usage, but you don't really understand the connotations or colloquial uses until you have seen other people use them in full context.

Of course, there are times when one might want to dredge up an infrequently used word, coin a new one, or transport something from current spoken vernacular onto the page. This should be a tiny fraction of where our chosen words come from, though. Reading is the tool to build usable vocabulary, even if it isn't fetch.

Re: Write Like You Talk (2015)

#129

Post by doctor_eval »

Something comes over most people when they start painting. They paint in a different way than if they were sending a photo to a friend. The image structure and even the colours are different. No one uses a "canvas" in a photo. You'd feel like an idiot using a "canvas" instead of a "camera" when creating an image to send to a friend.

Re: Write Like You Talk (2015)

#130

Post by fsckboy »

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…

> much easier to express a cohesive, complex thought this way compared to a meandering, directionless sentence

he didn't say "write badly". plenty of people can speak informally without being meandering and directionless.

"the mercurial artist" or "the mercurial Picasso" would have been much better than "the mercurial Spaniard"

Post reply on HN