思考与写作paulgraham.com编辑精选
像说话一样写作
Write like you talk
2015 — 2022，它一次次回到首页
黑点是上首页（≥ 50 分）的那次投稿，空心点是没冲上去的投稿，点越大分数越高。
导读
这是 Paul Graham 的经典短文《像说话一样写作》。他认为口语化的表达更清晰、更诚实，复杂的句式和华丽辞藻往往让作者误以为自己表达得比实际更多，因此写作时应尽量贴近自然的说话方式。
为什么经久不衰：它触及写作风格的核心争论——简洁口语化 vs 精确书面化——每次重发都能引发高质量讨论，对任何想改进写作的人都有启发。
HN 评论精选
书面语中的“对话感”是经过编辑的理想化口语，做到它需要技巧，不能简单照搬说话方式
如果你读过访谈或对话的逐字记录，就知道真实的口语一点也不清晰。即兴说话时，即使思路最清晰的人也会絮叨、支吾、绕回来、跳来跳去。当面听人说话时，大脑会实时编辑对方的话，只关注重点；而书面形式中，这种编辑通常由熟练的记者替我们完成。所以书面语中所谓的“对话感”并非自然交流的再现，而是它的理想化版本。追求它当然有价值，尤其是针对那些容易写得沉闷的商业和学术写作，但“像说话一样写”并不简单——写出清晰又不流于浅薄、居高临下或平庸的对话式文字，需要练习和技巧。反过来，对话式语气能改善复杂话题的正式写作，而更含蓄俏皮的语言也能让平淡的话题生动起来。
stupidcar查看英文原文
If you've ever read a verbatim transcript of an interview or conversation, you'll know that actual speech is anything but clear. When talking off the cuff, even the most clear minded people tend to ramble, um and ahh, double back, talk across each other, and jump between points and subjects. When listening to someone in person, our brains seem to edit what they say on the fly to make it comprehendible, focusing on the important bits and forgetting the rest. When it's presented in written form, such as in a newspaper or magazine article, a skilled journalist has usually done the editing for us. This means that what we consider a “conversational” tone in written language is not a representation of natural communication so much as an idealised version of it. That doesn't mean it isn't useful to strive for it, particularly in business and academic writing that otherwise tends towards the turgid, but it isn't as simple as telling people to “write how you talk”. Writing conversational prose that achieves clarity whilst not being oversimplified, patronising or banal requires practice and skill. I also think, conversely, that while a conversational tone can improve formal writing about complex topics, the reverse can be true. It's possible to enliven mundane topics by being less direct and more playful with language.
PG 挑的例子有失公允，他自己也写出了并不口语化的精妙句子
这个建议不错，但我不同意他举的例子。那段引文其实足够清晰、风格也有吸引力，不是 PG 喜欢的风格不等于写得差。而且他挑的那句恰好特别不口语化，这有两点误导：一是让 Oliver 的风格显得比实际更晦涩正式；二是即使更口语化的写作，偶尔也会有一句更正式的表达。PG 自己那句“非正式语言是思想的运动服”在对话里恐怕也说不出口，但它通过了朗读测试，因为它是观点的精炼概括。
alecdbrooks查看英文原文
This is good advice, but I disagree with his example. The entire paragraph reads[0]: >The Upper Palaeolithic cave art of Europe was a tradition that lasted for perhaps 20,000 years and it will always be rightly described as primitive. But it is upon those anonymous artists' shoulders — giants' shoulders — that later masters like Picasso were able to stand. The mercurial Spaniard himself declared: 'After Altamira, all is decadence.' Sure, for maximum clarity, Neil Oliver could have written more like he talks. But this paragraph is clear enough and written in an appealing style. It might not be Paul Graham's favorite style, but that doesn't make it bad writing. I also think the sentence he picked is particularly unconversational, which is misleading for two reasons. One, it makes Oliver's style sound more opaque and formal than it actually is. Two, even in a more conversational style than Oliver's, you're occasionally going to include something that's a step more formal. I think Graham knows this, albeit unconsciously. Would he really say "Informal language is the athletic clothing of ideas" in a conversation? Probably not, but it reasonably passed his read aloud test because it's a good distillation of his point. [0]: https://books.google.com/books?id=1Uk0AgAAQBAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=%22A+History+of+Ancient+Britain%22&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CB0Q6AEwAGoVChMImOmc8dDeyAIVReEmCh3bugxv#v=onepage&q&f=false
口语化优化了易懂性，但会牺牲语言的细腻、审美和独特表达
这是很流行的建议，我在文科学院至少听过六次。我同意它的主旨，但重要的是接受它完整的推论：非正式语言是思想的运动服——舒适、实用、方便，但人们穿衣也为了审美和文化。当你优化为让尽可能多的人易于消化时，可能牺牲了细腻或美感。像 mercurial 这样的词有独特的深度和区分度，所以 Neil Oliver 们还在用，这是好事。
jmduke查看英文原文
This is fairly popular advice, and I heard it at least a half dozen times at my (liberal arts) college. That's not to dismiss this post because its takeaway is commonplace: I agree with the sentiment. However, I think it's important to embrace the full implication of its thesis: Informal language is the athletic clothing of ideas. Athletic clothing is comfortable, it is functional, and it traffics in convenience. But people wear clothes for aesthetics, for culture, for dozens of reasons. When you optimize for, say, being as easily digestible by as many people as possible, you may reduce your nuance or your aesthetic or whatever. And words like mercurial tend to have unique depths and distinctions that keep them being used by the Neil Olivers of the world. That's a good thing. (As a minor aside that doesn't detract from his point: You'd feel like an idiot using "pen" instead of "write" in a conversation with a friend. Really? Some people just feel more comfortable in suits than in sweatpants. There's nothing wrong with that.)
核心想法（删掉多余的词）很好，但 PG 过度概括了，说和写本就各有优劣
和 Paul Graham 的许多观点一样：这里有一个好而重要的想法（删掉多余的词！），但他用力过猛，滑向了刻薄的过度概括。真相更微妙：说和写都是重要的沟通方式，但各有优劣。好的写作是紧凑的、有张力的。如果一个词能达成这个目标，就该用——如果 Graham 这样的人想斥之为“花哨”，那暴露的是批评者自己而非文章的问题。
bcantrill查看英文原文
As with so many things Paul Graham: there is a good, important idea here (omit needless words!) but he overshoots the mark, descending into venomous overgeneralizations. The truth is more nuanced: speaking and writing are both important vectors for communication (obviously?), but they are different (delightfully so!) -- with different strengths and weaknesses. Great writing is tight: it crackles. If a word serves that end, it should be used -- knowing that if someone like Graham wants to decry the word choice as "fancy", it reveals more about the critic than the writing.
历次讨论
同类还值得读
保持你的身份认同足够小
Keep Your Identity Small (2009)
Paul Graham 2009 年的一篇短文：人一旦把某个话题当成自己身份的一部分（宗教、政治、编程语言皆然），讨论就会退化成站队和争吵，因为此时争论的不再是事实，而是"我是谁…
思考与写作上首页 5 次 · 2009–2021paulgraham.com编辑精选苏格拉底式教学法：通过提问而非讲授来教学
The Socratic Method: Teaching by Asking Instead of by Telling
记录了作者用纯提问的方式，引导一群小学生从零推导出二进制计数法的课堂实验，展示了苏格拉底式教学法的惊人效果。
思考与写作上首页 5 次 · 2011–2022garlikov.com你不能说的话
What You Can't Say (2004)
Paul Graham 2004 年的经典文章，探讨那些因道德时尚而不能公开说出的观点。
思考与写作上首页 5 次 · 2014–2022paulgraham.com编辑精选龙暴君的寓言（2005）
The Fable of the Dragon-Tyrant (2005)
哲学家 Nick Bostrom 于 2005 年写的一则寓言：一条每天吞噬数千人的巨龙（隐喻死亡与衰老）长期被人类当作不可抗拒的自然规律接受，直到有人提出并最终用导弹将其杀死，…
思考与写作上首页 5 次 · 2009–2021nickbostrom.com编辑精选现实有着惊人的细节量
Reality has a surprising amount of detail (2017)
2017 年的博文指出，现实远比我们以为的充满细节：我们习惯用简化的心智模型看世界，直到真正动手做事（比如作者举的造楼梯例子）才发现处处是未曾预料的细节。
思考与写作上首页 4 次 · 2018–2025johnsalvatier.org编辑精选