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

71–80 of 152 posts

Re: Write Like You Talk (2015)

#71

Post by texaslonghorn5 »

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.

At least in my experience, writing is a great medium for creative expression. It's a relatively permanent medium to express the fleeting now. I can look back in many years and remember and reflect on what I did and thought.

As long as you're not dependent on having an audience as a form of income, I'd think the blog is intended for the writer first and foremost, and having a readership is secondary/optional.

Re: Write Like You Talk (2015)

#72

Post by teucris »

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…

The Spaniard, known to change his moods on a whim, himself declared: “After Altimara, all is decadence.”

> And the whole point of "fancy words" are to succinctly convey some nuance rather than using a generic word which is much broader.

Which can be bad when you want your audience to understand you without significant effort. Reading a novel, a reader may be willing, or excited even, to expend effort to get all the nuances and context. But if you’re writing to communicate an idea, you have to match the expectations of your audience, and your audience may have a fixed effort budget to spend on your writing. Most people know this deal, which is why I think using big words is looked down on as self-absorbed or conceited.

I think similarly about code one-liners: they are super hard for another programmer to read, and not everyone has time for that. So they tend to come off as a kind of elitist bragging if not done carefully.

Re: Write Like You Talk (2015)

#73

Post by YurgenJurgensen »

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…

That "bogus" link is also cheating. I can't hyperlink with my voice, so hyperlinks aren't spoken language.

Re: Write Like You Talk (2015)

#74

Post by Liron »

Yet another pg classic.

When I first read this essay, it made me go from writing 90% similar to the way I talk, to 100% - literally only writing words and phrases I'd realistically say in a conversation. And I think it's been a good improvement!

Re: Write Like You Talk (2015)

#75

Post by l33tbro »

> But just imagine calling Picasso "the mercurial Spaniard" when talking to a friend. Even one sentence of this would raise eyebrows in conversation.

Why does everything have to be "optimized" with Paul? I'll take verbose misfires any day over rigid plain-speak.

Re: Write Like You Talk (2015)

#76

Post by pwinnski »

GeneralMayhem wrote: post #58

How much of PG's blog is based on setting up strawmen and using them to bash on the liberal arts? > Even one sentence of this would raise eyebrows in conversation. And yet people write whole books of it. These sentences immediately identify one big, relevant difference between speech and non-blog writing, which is not commented on in the blog post: people do not generally give book-length monologues on a single topic…

This deserves a call-out:

> On the other hand, simpler words and sentence structure give the reader the false impression that you're being more honest than you actually are. Demagogues (especially of the right-wing variety) have known this for centuries: people like simple ideas. Making an idea sound simpler, even if at the expense of actual clarity, means that people will agree with you more readily. That can be dangerous.

Well said!

Re: Write Like You Talk (2015)

#77

Post by biorach »

l33tbro wrote: post #75

> But just imagine calling Picasso "the mercurial Spaniard" when talking to a friend. Even one sentence of this would raise eyebrows in conversation. Why does everything have to be "optimized" with Paul? I'll take verbose misfires any day over rigid plain-speak.

He wasn't advocating rigid plain speak

Re: Write Like You Talk (2015)

#78

Post by js8 »

tayo42 wrote: post #40
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…

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.

Not an english speaker, but I use thesaurus when I feel there might be a better fitting word or if I would repeat the same word several times.

Re: Write Like You Talk (2015)

#79

Post by texaslonghorn5 »

teucris wrote: post #72
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…

The Spaniard, known to change his moods on a whim, himself declared: “After Altimara, all is decadence.” > And the whole point of "fancy words" are to succinctly convey some nuance rather than using a generic word which is much broader. Which can be bad when you want your audience to understand you without significant effort. Reading a novel, a reader may be willing, or excited even, to expend effort to get all the n…

If you're writing for an audience familiar with the word mercurial then saying mercurial conveys exactly what the author meant.

If you're writing for an audience unfamiliar with mercurial then what you said is appropriate.

As is with a one liner, you wouldn't put that into a tutorial but you might include it without description in a CppCon talk.

Re: Write Like You Talk (2015)

#80

Post by texaslonghorn5 »

biorach wrote: post #77
l33tbro wrote: post #75

> But just imagine calling Picasso "the mercurial Spaniard" when talking to a friend. Even one sentence of this would raise eyebrows in conversation. Why does everything have to be "optimized" with Paul? I'll take verbose misfires any day over rigid plain-speak.

He wasn't advocating rigid plain speak

Ok, pretend you are Paul and then what should the author have written instead of mercurial?
Post reply on HN