语言与文风2015paulgraham.com编辑精选
像说话一样写作
Write like you talk
导读
这篇短文主张写作应像说话一样自然、清晰，避免装腔作势的书面腔。评论补充了一个关键提醒：真实口语其实混乱，书面“对话感”是经过编辑的理想化版本，需要练习和技巧，也不能因此否定正式、精确或审美的表达。写作者可借这场讨论反思“朗读测试”的边界，并找到清晰与风格之间的平衡。
可以直接用的写作要点
- 01
先按口语思路写出初稿，再像记者整理访谈逐字稿那样删掉重复、跳跃和口头禅，补上逻辑连接。
- 02
把“朗读测试”用来发现拗口、装腔的句子，但不要把它当成删除所有正式词汇和精确表达的理由。
- 03
清晰不等于简化到平庸；当某个正式词能保留独特含义或审美效果时，可以有意识地保留它。
- 04
用具体规则自检：能删的词就删、短词优先、主动语态优先、避免陈词滥调和无必要术语。
HN 评论精选
真实口语混乱，书面“对话感”是经编辑的理想化版本，需要技巧，不能简单等同于照搬说话。
如果你读过访谈或对话的逐字稿，就会知道真实口语绝谈不上清晰。即兴说话时，哪怕思路最清楚的人也常会东拉西扯、嗯嗯啊啊、绕回来、互相插话、在观点和话题间跳来跳去。面对面听人说话时，我们的大脑似乎会实时编辑对方的话，让它变得可理解，抓住重点、忘掉其余；写成文字时，通常是熟练记者替我们做了编辑。这意味着我们所谓书面语中的“对话式”语气，并不是自然交流的再现，而更像是它的理想化版本。追求这种语气并非没用，尤其在容易写得沉闷的商业和学术写作中；但它并不像“照你说的那样写”那么简单。写出既清晰、又不过度简化、不说教、不平庸的对话式散文，需要练习和技巧。反过来也成立：把平常话题写得没那么直接、更多语言游戏，也可能让它们生动起来。
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.
例子选得偏正式，清晰与个人风格可以并存，朗读测试不必消灭所有正式表达。
这是好建议，但我不同意他的例子。Neil Oliver 那段关于欧洲旧石器时代洞穴艺术的文字已经足够清晰，而且风格有吸引力；它可能不是 Paul Graham 最喜欢的风格，但这不等于坏写作。他挑的句子特别不像口语，这会误导：一是让 Oliver 的风格显得比实际更晦涩正式；二是即使比 Oliver 更口语的风格，偶尔也会出现更正式一点的表达。我认为 Graham 潜意识里知道这一点。他会在对话中真说“Informal language is the athletic clothing of ideas”吗？大概不会，但它合理通过了朗读测试，因为这是对他观点的好提炼。
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
口语化只是功能选择，正式词汇和审美价值不应被牺牲。
这是相当流行的建议，我在文理学院至少听过六次。这不是贬低这篇，因为要点虽然常见，我同意这种感受。但重要的是接受其论点的完整含义：非正式语言是思想的运动服。运动服舒适、实用、方便，但人们穿衣也为了审美、文化等几十种理由。当你优化为尽可能多的人容易消化时，可能会牺牲细微差别或美感。像 mercurial 这样的词有独特深度和区分，让 Neil Oliver 们继续使用是好事。顺带一提：跟朋友对话时用“pen”而不是“write”会像白痴。真的吗？有些人穿西装就是比穿运动裤舒服，这没问题。
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.)
该建议易导致漫谈且缺少规则，Orwell 的六条具体规则更可操作。
“像说话一样写”是双重坏建议：它鼓励漫谈，而读者不像对话中的人能打断；它也没有给出写作时可遵循的明确规则。依我经验，Orwell 六条更有用：一、不要用你常年在印刷品上看到的比喻、明喻或其他修辞；二、短词能代替就不用长词；三、能删的词一定删；四、能用主动就不用被动；五、能用日常英语表达就不用外来语、科学词或行话；六、宁愿打破以上任何一条，也不要说 outright barbarous 的话。
aWidebrant查看英文原文
"Write like you talk" is bad advice twice: It encourages rambling, which - unlike in a conversation - the reader has no means to interrupt, and it offers no clear rules to follow while writing. Orwell's six[1] are, in my experience, much more useful: (i) Never use a metaphor, simile, or other figure of speech which you are used to seeing in print. (ii) Never use a long word where a short one will do. (iii) If it is possible to cut a word out, always cut it out. (iv) Never use the passive where you can use the active. (v) Never use a foreign phrase, a scientific word, or a jargon word if you can think of an everyday English equivalent. (vi) Break any of these rules sooner than say anything outright barbarous. [1] https://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/orwell46.htm
同类还值得读
法律语言难懂源于写作不佳，而非专业概念
Poor writing, not specialized concepts, drives difficulty with legal language
这是一项认知科学研究：法律文本难懂，主要不是因为充斥专业术语，而是因为写作者把句子写得又长又绕、修饰语层层嵌套、回指距离过远。
语言与文风2022 · 559 分 · 322 评5 条写作要点编辑精选写得简单
Write Simply
保罗·格拉汉姆在这篇短文里主张：好文章应该写得简单——用日常词汇、短句、直白的结构，不为显得聪明而堆砌复杂表达。
语言与文风2021 · 484 分 · 330 评4 条写作要点编辑精选Tortured phrases：科学写作中出现的一种可疑文风
Tortured phrases: A dubious writing style emerging in science
《自然》新闻报道了一种在科学论文中蔓延的怪现象：原本标准的术语被同义替换软件改写成了古怪说法，比如把 "cloud computing" 写成 "haze figuring"。
语言与文风2021 · 329 分 · 256 评4 条写作要点编辑精选乔治·奥威尔 1940 年对《我的奋斗》的书评
George Orwell's review of Mein Kampf (1940)
这是奥威尔1940年对《我的奋斗》的书评。
语言与文风2014 · 305 分 · 240 评4 条写作要点编辑精选乔治·奥威尔《政治与英语》（1946）
George Orwell, “Politics and the English Language” (1946)
这篇是奥威尔1946年的经典文章，讨论政治语言如何用委婉语、模糊措辞和陈腐隐喻来掩盖暴力与不可辩护之事。
语言与文风2016 · 301 分 · 150 评4 条写作要点编辑精选