Live data from Hacker News

Writing and Speaking

paulgraham.com

71–80 of 240 posts

Re: Writing and Speaking

#71
Removing the "ums" (a distraction) is a far cry from going to the dark side of public speaking ("vacuousness").

One insight I had into public speaking was that good speakers pause. There is white space in their delivery. These are typically the locations where a less experienced speaker puts his verbal tics.

Just as we prefer well-spaced, paragraph style coding over wall-of-text maintenance nightmares, we should work towards removing our fear of "dead air" and let our presentations breathe a bit.

Re: Writing and Speaking

#73
post #23

Speaking is not about information transmission. Speaking is to make people do something. For example, Steve Jobs keynotes made you go to the Apple Online Store and preorder the latest products; Bret Victor in his "Inventing on Principle" talk makes you rant about the current state of IDEs. The effect of a talk disappears rapidly after the speaker has left the stage. In contrast, a written text stays.

Speaking is also about changing minds and hearts. Persuasion works much better in person than in print. There are studies to this effect.

The effect of a talk does not have to "disappear rapidly" after the talk is over. That is why you will find lots of old Jobs keynotes on youtube, because they are still very powerful, and useful, interesting, educational, and motivating even when the products discussed are no longer being sold.

Re: Writing and Speaking

#74
"Plus people in an audience are always affected by the reactions of those around them ...

Part of the reason I laughed so much at the talk by the good speaker at that conference was that everyone else did."

Along the same lines there were (and still are) claques, rieurs etc. whose sole purpose is to create the social proof necessary for a good performance.

Similar to TV laugh tracks or even the use of music in film and tv.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Claque

Re: Writing and Speaking

#75
Paul, that's your problem (and you know it yourself):

"Before I give a talk I can usually be found sitting in a corner somewhere with a copy printed out on paper, trying to rehearse it in my head."

The more your script the worse you are.

=> First, do not try to be like all the great speakers you know, forget them, don't try to be better than you are or somebody else. Just be yourself and don't try to be perfect.

=> Forget that you presenting to a crowd, rather think of speaking to just one person—a good friend (imagine this, would you script a conversation to a friend?? No!)

=> Never, really never learn a script, that's the worst thing a presenter can do (ok, you need for very formal und official occasions like political speeches a script but even then some parts shouldn't be scripted word by word). Just rehearse the first five sentences of your presentation (to get in) + the topics you want to talk about. Before the presentation practice, but don't take notes just use the few topics to have some rough storyline. That's enough, the rest will come to your mind by itself. Sometimes you have to think and you make short pauses but this is normal and makes the speech authentic. Again THAT'S your problem: you want to be perfect, to deliver a perfect speech with no mistakes and to go into a presentation with this expectations just doesn't work.

=> Ideas and the presentation's contents are the most important part of a presentation (not accurately chosen words). Great ideas are not so important for the audience as they are for your enthusiasm and charisma while being on stage. If you haven't got any outstanding idea (good is not enough), don't present. If you have just one very good idea then do not present 10 other crap ideas. Look, the content has to be so great that when it came the first time to your mind you had the urge to call a friend and to tell it to him. If you are really enthusiastic about your content you don't need a damn script. Or with other words: your goal is not to deliver a perfect speech for the sake of a perfect speech, your goal is to transport a brilliant idea. I know that there many good speeches where the content is not brilliant but that doesn't matter, important is that YOU/the speaker think the ideas are brilliant.

=> Ultimately, you need tons of self-confidence, that means that you are really proud of yourself or better your really love yourself and what you are going to say (basically that's the most important thing; the more self-confidence you have, the smaller is your need to deliver a perfect presentation)

=> A final hack: sit while presenting if the circumstances allow (much easier and good for beginners)

I saw you on some panels, you were very good, charismatic and strong (because your talks weren't scripted). Don't say you are a bad speaker, you are pretty good, you just had a bad day or you havent found the key yet. And look: maybe your presentation wasn't the best but did we stopped liking you? So, no need to be perfect.

Re: Writing and Speaking

#76
>If you know what you're talking about, you can say it in the plainest words and you'll be perceived as having a good style.

Clearly PG has never read Ulysses.

Re: Writing and Speaking

#77
post #64
post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Two key passages: > Having good ideas is most of writing well. Disagreed. Written style matters, and whenever it doesn't matter, neither would it matter in spoken form. Your writing style happens to be lean, concise, reduced. But that doesn't just happen -- or are all your essays first drafts? Would they work as well in flowery prose? > (...) it was a revelation to me how much less ideas mattered > in speaking than w…

See what a useful exercise it is to look at the actual sentences I wrote? Gone are the claims that I consider the extra things you can do in a talk "mere baggage" (I said the opposite in the last paragraph) and that "essays are baggage-free" (I said the opposite in the 8th paragraph). Now all I'm being accused of is claiming that having good ideas is most of writing well, and that it is a smaller component of speakin…

For those that did not catch it: #1 used a metaphor to prove the point that using metaphors is not superfluous. golf clap :) The question is: did the metaphor take away from the point? Absolutely not. In fact, it helped to solidify it.

===

You're both right and talking passed each other. Writing and speaking both have their flourishes. Writing has constructs and techniques that are not strictly necessary just as oration does. There are also factors besides the content that affect the results of both mediums: writing something in my notebook does not have the same effect as posting it to my blog. So, as far as the tools available, writing and speaking are on the same level for recording and sharing ideas.

However, people are more susceptible to spoken word. There is a reason that poetry is read aloud. This can be used for good or evil but it does encourage people to spend more time preparing for the "flourishes" of speaking than the content.

I don't think anyone in this thread fundamentally disagrees with those statements :)

Re: Writing and Speaking

#78
My late senior partner was a world-famous (in our field) speaker and writer and leader. He'd be 88 years old now. He was old-fashioned in many ways, and insisted on telling us newbies exactly how he did public speaking, so that we could do likewise:

1. He wrote out every word, in the type of language he would use in conversation. The resulting "script" was double-spaced, with Python-like line breaks and indentations to signify the pauses he wanted.

2. Then for rehearsal, he read the entire speech aloud, to himself, ten times, practicing the cadences and the emphases he wanted, editing as he went. He said that reading the speech aloud to himself was critical, because that's what embeds the phrases and cadences and emphases in something like muscle memory.

He would also sometimes say that Churchill's supposedly-extemporaneous remarks were the product of enormous polishing and rehearsal.

Re: Writing and Speaking

#79
post #31

I've noticed that audiences laugh a lot and that most of what they laugh at is actually not very funny. Most people wouldn't normally laugh at the same things, unless they were really nervous. No doubt social proof is a big part of this: people laugh because others are laughing, as the essay says. Audiences are their own laugh track. But something has to start the ball rolling. I wonder if it's related to authority.…

I've noticed that audiences laugh a lot and that most of what they laugh at is actually not very funny.

Isn't the very definition of funny is that it makes people laugh? Laughter is inherently a social, group bonding phenomena. Inherently, a social, group gathering will have more laughter. There is no such thing as something being objectively funny, funny only exists inside a group and social context, which provides the opportunity for the group to bond at someone's expense (possibly someone inside the group, possibly someone or something outside the group).

Re: Writing and Speaking

#80
post #50
post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You seem to be attributing to me a lot of beliefs I don't hold. Can you give examples of any specific sentences or passages I wrote that you believe to be false?

Two key passages: > Having good ideas is most of writing well. Disagreed. Written style matters, and whenever it doesn't matter, neither would it matter in spoken form. Your writing style happens to be lean, concise, reduced. But that doesn't just happen -- or are all your essays first drafts? Would they work as well in flowery prose? > (...) it was a revelation to me how much less ideas mattered > in speaking than w…

Why is it 'of course not true'? pg's stance seems the far less controversial one than yours to be honest.

I think it is far rarer to see a flashy writer than a flashy speaker. Malcolm Gladwell is the only one that springs to mind. I think it's actually very hard to pull off as a writer.

This is precisely because of the 'other channels' you mentioned. It's very easy to spot someone trying to pander in writing, where in a crowd you get swept up in the general agreement of the crowd, it's an effective tactic that you often can't pull off in writing.

Post reply on HN