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

141–150 of 152 posts

Re: Write Like You Talk (2015)

#141

Post by Beldin »

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.

"Unless you are really very good at writing, it often looks like you're trying to show off. This distracts the reader from what you're writing about."

Yeah, we're going to have to agree to disagree here.

Re: Write Like You Talk (2015)

#142

Post by rongopo »

wyclif wrote: post #132
rongopo wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thesaurus is a fundamental tool of any good writer, to refine precise meanings without overdoing a bit. Denying this is certainly strange to me.

I don't think King was saying "never use a thesaurus", he was just pointing out that relying on it too much is not a good way to develop as a writer. The way you do that is by reading great books.

I agree, I think is a great tool, just the user should not abuse it.

Re: Write Like You Talk (2015)

#143

Post by D13Fd »

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…

It all depends on the audience. If the reader is reading for fun, more complex sentences can be fine. They're like spicy food.

If the reader is reading for work, you're much better off writing something that is short, clear, and easy to digest.

Re: Write Like You Talk (2015)

#144

Post by chromatin »

mr_sturd wrote: post #93
chromatin wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What an absurd and pathetic characterization of Southern Mountain Speech and/or rural American dialect. It comes across as speaking more to your character than your polemic target.

I meant it to read as if spoken by broad Northumbrian/Geordie.

Mea Culpa, and FTR I did not downvote you. In the US, individuals speaking with these dialects face discrimination and I wonder if it is the same among select speakers in the UK?

Re: Write Like You Talk (2015)

#145

Post by chromatin »

dctoedt wrote: post #82
chromatin wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What an absurd and pathetic characterization of Southern Mountain Speech and/or rural American dialect. It comes across as speaking more to your character than your polemic target.

> Southern Mountain Speech and/or rural American dialect Funny, I thought it was a phonetic transcription of Scottish dialect (whence are derived many Appalachian speech patterns, of course).

Ah yes I've read that Appalacian pronunciation, dialect, and to a lesser extent grammar is still relatively faithful to some UK dialects. Fascinating that a literal phonetic transcription was potentially ambiguous.

Re: Write Like You Talk (2015)

#146

Post by karmakaze »

watwut wrote: post #55
karmakaze wrote: post #46

There is a good message here if you don't get distracted by whatever may particlarly bother you about the presentation. > You don't need complex sentences to express complex ideas. [...] Informal language is the athletic clothing of ideas. I interpret this as following my basic mode of operation: express everything as simply as I can, even if that makes my brilliant idea sound so obvious. The goal isn't to make mysel…

But the way people talk naturally does not lead to simple sentences nor simple constructions. People talk in runabout ways, add unnecessary details, miss others and then go back to fill them in. Some people do in fact use complex words and others use too simple wrong words when they speak. People use tone of voice to add meaning and also gestures. Transcript of natural conversation is not a simple readable text. Inst…

That's exactly the details to be dropped. Don't get hung up on how the article started with "natural speech", that's the bathwater. The baby is promote simple sentence structures and word choices that convey the problem and solution concisely without fancy complexity of language that doesn't add to understanding.

Re: Write Like You Talk (2015)

#147

Post by mr_sturd »

chromatin wrote: post #144
mr_sturd wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I meant it to read as if spoken by broad Northumbrian/Geordie.

Mea Culpa, and FTR I did not downvote you. In the US, individuals speaking with these dialects face discrimination and I wonder if it is the same among select speakers in the UK?

I don't experience it personally. Though I believe there can be a tendency for people to look down on northerners, the closer you get to London.

Don't worry about it! I only meant it as tongue-in-cheek response and didn't wish to upset.

Re: Write Like You Talk (2015)

#148

Post by watwut »

karmakaze wrote: post #146
watwut wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But the way people talk naturally does not lead to simple sentences nor simple constructions. People talk in runabout ways, add unnecessary details, miss others and then go back to fill them in. Some people do in fact use complex words and others use too simple wrong words when they speak. People use tone of voice to add meaning and also gestures. Transcript of natural conversation is not a simple readable text. Inst…

That's exactly the details to be dropped. Don't get hung up on how the article started with "natural speech", that's the bathwater. The baby is promote simple sentence structures and word choices that convey the problem and solution concisely without fancy complexity of language that doesn't add to understanding.

I really dont think the article is good at promoting that idea. And one problem (frequent with Paul Graham writing) is that it builds false dichotomy in between supposedly simple talk language and complicated written language.

Written language is not inherently more convoluted and complex. Not even on discussion forums with untrained people who dont read after themselves.

> It seems to be hard for most people to write in spoken language.

The written texts end up convoluted frequently because people do write them as they think they would speak. People speak in complex sentences, tone of voice making the difference. Then they see all the horrible warts and try to fix them - badly.

Also, the article does not contain actionable advice on how to write. It does not help you to deal with sentence structure nor help you to refactor bad sentence. It is fluff.

Re: Write Like You Talk (2015)

#149

Post by civilized »

GeneralMayhem wrote: post #65
civilized wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> venomous overgeneralizations Sorry, but this illustrates Graham's point even better than the "mercurial Spaniard" thing. Reaching for a fancy word that doesn't quite make sense in context. Overgeneralizations could be absurd. They could even be dangerous, perhaps - although Graham's alleged overgeneralization really doesn't seem to be, even if wrong. They're not venomous, at least not without an argument. You can't…

The venomous, dangerous, overgeneralized part is - I assume intentionally - snuck in under the radar. Did you follow the link on the word "bogus", and notice what keywords PG thinks are indicative of bogosity? A warning against overwrought language is one thing, but it's carried through to an attack on any complexity in written language (with no acknowledgement that sometimes that complexity is necessary or preferabl…

Graham didn't say that liberal-arts academia is a conspiracy. He said that the part of the humanities that makes heavy use of words like transgression/narrative/postmodern/gender constitutes "the more bogus end of the humanities".

I won't 100% support that, since I don't have a deep understanding of these areas. But I think it's in a valid range of opinion, given things like the Sokal affair [1]. All sorts of people are reasonably suspicious of the hard-to-understand output of the "Theory" and "Studies" fields, not just "STEM-lords".

The suspicion isn't restricted to the humanities either. We all know that business schools and social science departments are having their own problems right now with trendy findings that don't hold up. There's legitimate controversy over whether work in string theory represents meaningful scientific progress. Etc.

Some areas of academia have more problems with bogosity than others. It seems hard to dispute.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sokal_affair

Re: Write Like You Talk (2015)

#150

Post by civilized »

rfrey wrote: post #85
civilized wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> venomous overgeneralizations Sorry, but this illustrates Graham's point even better than the "mercurial Spaniard" thing. Reaching for a fancy word that doesn't quite make sense in context. Overgeneralizations could be absurd. They could even be dangerous, perhaps - although Graham's alleged overgeneralization really doesn't seem to be, even if wrong. They're not venomous, at least not without an argument. You can't…

>Sorry, but this illustrates Graham's point even better than the "mercurial Spaniard" thing Funny, I thought it refuted Graham's point, very effectively.

It definitely shows how you can deploy words to sound confident and intellectual, impressing people without actually making an argument.
Post reply on HN