语言与文风2021metaphorhacker.net编辑精选
文风建议的问题所在
The Problem with Writing-Style Advice
导读
这篇文章批评流行的写作风格建议（如 Pinker、Sword 的“清晰写作”法则），认为学术写作的问题不在于“没风格”，而在于它本身是一种难写好的、极简的专业风格，写作者真正该追求的是严谨而非漂亮。评论区从不同角度补充：风格取决于读者对象、抽象原则要落地成可执行的规则、以及“能读懂自己的文字”才是写作建议生效的前提。适合所有被“写作风格指南”绕晕、想弄清该改什么的人读。
可以直接用的写作要点
- 01
先确定读者是谁，再谈风格：面向大众和面向同行本就是两套写法，别拿同一把尺子量。
- 02
别把“学术风格”当成没风格的借口——那种极简、克制的写法本身就是高难度手艺。
- 03
把宏大原则压缩成一两条可自查的规则（如“句子短、意思清楚”），比背一堆原则更能改出效果。
- 04
练习拆解、批评并改写别人的文字，是训练“读懂自己文章”这一关键能力的最现实路径。
HN 评论精选
风格是相对于读者而言的，批评别人“不学术”前要先看他的目标读者；学术腔本身也是一种难写的风格。
我不接受“文采与信息量必须二选一”这个前提，而且原文的论证一开始就站不住脚：它抱怨 Pinker 写得不像学术写作，却只盯着他面向非学术读者写的书。Pinker 在期刊论文里完全写得出标准学术腔，看他 1979 年那篇 Formal Models of Abstract Learning 的摘要就够了。风格的一个重要维度是它指向哪类读者，Pinker（以及始终如此的 Gladwell）常常不是写给学术圈看的。此外原文还有循环论证的问题：它描述的学术写作并非“没有风格”，而是一种非常特定的、很难写好的简练风格。
ajarmst查看英文原文
I don't accept the premise that you must choose between stylish and informative writing, but the argument fails at the outset. Complaining that Pinker (one assumes especially in his A Sense of Style, which I recommend without reservation) writes poorly for academics by focusing on his writing for a non-academic audience. If you desire a more "academic" style, Pinker is quite capable of providing it, if you look at his journal articles (the abstract to his Formal Models of Abstract Learning at https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/0010027779900015 should provide sufficient evidence of his familiarity with the norms). One important aspect of a writer's style is how it is directed toward the audience, and Pinker is frequently (and Gladwell is always) not writing for an academic audience. This post also has a fundamental begging-the-question problem: the academic writing it describes is not notable for an absence of style, but for a very specific terse style that is difficult to do well.
主张“风格不重要”的文章自己写得不通顺，反而证明了风格会影响读者是否愿意读下去。
很讽刺的是，作者语法不佳让我很难认真对待这份宣言。很多句子结构别扭甚至错误，读着读着很分心，第二三节之后我就放弃了。这不能推翻他的观点，但至少说明写作风格在某种程度上确实重要。
npilk查看英文原文
Ironically, it's hard for me to take this manifesto seriously because of the author's poor grammar. I found the awkward and/or incorrect structure of many sentences distracting and ultimately gave up after the second or third section. This doesn't invalidate the author's ideas, but it does suggest that writing style matters to at least some degree.
按原则重写确实有效，但成本很高；实用的折中是只求句子清楚简短。
作为练习，我花了大量时间严格照着 Sword 的原则重写了自己博士论文的一章。最终结果确实更短、更清晰、更好读。但那非常费力，我不确定这份努力对学术写作者来说是否值得——比如这篇文章若按 Sword 的标准打分，成绩会很差。其实只追求句子清楚、简短就够了。
nmaley查看英文原文
As an exercise, I spent hours and hours and hours re-writing a chapter of my PhD thesis strictly according to Sword's principles. The eventual result was shorter, clearer and more readable. But it was hard work, and I'm not sure the effort justifies the reward for academic writers. For example, this post would score poorly if marked according to Sword's principles. Better to aim just for clear, short sentences.
写作建议的前提是作者能评估自己的文字；先用改写他人作品来训练这种能力，否则只能靠简单规则兜底。
写作建议很难给。最需要它的人，往往隔着一道自己跨不过去的鸿沟——他们读不出自己文章的问题。而要获得这种能力，需要兴趣、投入和练习的混合，恐怕没什么捷径。我能想到最接近的办法，是花时间拆解、分析、批评并“修理”别人写的东西；如果你本身就把读写当作目的而非手段，长期看进步会更大。一旦某人学会了读自己的文字，你给什么建议他都接得住；如果没学会，你能做的最多只是给他几条直白的“规则”，让他至少有机会在自己稿子里发现并改掉问题。（补充：我觉得这对编程同样成立；对问我“怎么写作”的上班族，我通常推荐去上一门新闻写作课。）
abathur查看英文原文
Writing-advice is tricky. The people who need it most are on the far side of a chasm they can't bridge without learning to read their own writing. Doing so takes a mix of interest/dedication and practice that I suspect are hard to hack. The closest you can get, I think, is to spend some time breaking down, analyzing, critiquing, and "fixing" things others have written. You may also fare better, in calendar time, if you like writing and reading as ends. If someone has learned to read themselves, you can give them all sorts of great advice. If they haven't, the best you can do is give straightforward "rules" they'll have some hope of spotting and fixing in their own work. Edits: - Yes--I think this holds for programming. - Taking a newswriting class is my stock recommendation for ~working people who ask me "how write?"
同类还值得读
像说话一样写作
Write like you talk
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。
语言与文风2015 · 647 分 · 272 评4 条写作要点编辑精选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