写作方法2012paulgraham.com编辑精选
写作与演讲
Writing and Speaking
导读
这是 Paul Graham 谈「写作与演讲」两种表达媒介的文章：他认为书面写作在传递思想上更纯粹高效，而演讲中的语调、节奏、情绪等常被视为干扰。几位评论者从不同角度反驳：表达风格本身就是内容的一部分，演讲与写作是不同的媒介、不能互相直译。对写作者来说，这篇讨论提醒我们：想法之外，「交付方式」和读者/听众的接收状态同样决定表达成败。
可以直接用的写作要点
- 01
好文笔与平庸文字的差距往往不在想法，而在风格与「交付方式」，写作同样需要经营语气和节奏。
- 02
情绪、语气不是噪音而是信息的一部分，写文章时应主动运用，而不是一味追求冷静中立。
- 03
写作要像演讲一样照顾接收端：预判读者会在哪里走神、哪里跟不上，据此调整密度与节奏。
- 04
不要把演讲稿逐字改写成文章，也不要把文章逐字念成演讲；换媒介就要按该媒介的规律重写。
HN 评论精选
演讲的语调、节奏、情绪等多通道并非噪音，写作同样靠「交付方式」，不能把写作视为无包袱的纯粹媒介。
把公开演讲一概视为劣于书面交流，未免太轻率，也带点居高临下，我强烈不同意 Graham 的立场。纯信息传递确实在书面形式中更高效：噪音更少，读者可随意跳过、回看。但演讲提供了更多通道——语调、语速、用词、韵律、情绪化——我拒绝把这些当成累赘。说文章没有累赘同样是误导：好文笔差别巨大，伟大随笔作家与业余博主的差距很少只在想法。交付方式很重要。Graham 视为噪音的情绪内容，在书面和口头同样会扭曲或增强表达。总之，一个演讲平庸、文章出色的作者恰好认为写作是更好的媒介，这未免太方便了。
apl查看英文原文
It's a bit too easy and somewhat condescending to brush off public speaking as strictly inferior to written communication. In fact, I disagree strongly with Graham's stance. Sure, pure information transmission is enhanced in written form: there's less noise, the reader can skip and backtrack at will, and so on. Speaking, however, gives you many more channels, and I refuse to consider these channels (inflection, speed, choice of words, prosody, emotionalization, what have you) mere baggage. Also, it's deceiving to propose that essays are baggage-free. Good style makes a huge difference, even in writing. Compare the great essayists to lowly part-time bloggers: the difference rarely boils down to just ideas. Delivery matters. Emotional content, something Graham appears to see as noise, distorts and enhances in written and spoken form alike. All in all, I find it a bit too convenient that a mediocre speaker and good essayist happens to think writing is simply the better medium.
讲得好不等于内容空——这是选择偏差；好表达是为了让信息真正被接收，而非取代想法。
我不算好演讲者，但比以前好多了。关键不只是每分钟传多少比特，而是确保对方真的接收到。我常在演讲里插笑话（或半笑话）来维持注意力，并观察听众以判断我讲得太快还是太慢。但信息量并未因此受损——有人说我一小时密码学演讲是「信息密度最高的一小时」。如果说好演讲会让我远离好想法，我的演讲应该越来越空，而不是相反。我认为 PG 看到的是真实效应，但归因错了：这是选择偏差——能被邀请演讲的人至少具备「好想法、好风格」之一，所以那些完全没有有趣想法的演讲必然讲得很漂亮；我们看不到既无想法又讲得差的人。这绝不说明讲得好导致了内容空洞。
cperciva查看英文原文
I wouldn't say that I'm a good speaker, but I'm certainly a much better speaker than I used to be. It's not just about transmitting a certain number of bits of information per minute; it's also about making sure that those bits are being received at the other end. I often throw jokes (and quasi-jokes, like my "purpose of cryptography is to force the US government to torture you" line) into talks as a way to help keep the audience's attention; and I watch the audience for signs that I'm moving too fast or too slow for them. But for all of this, I don't think the material I convey has suffered in the slightest. One audience member told me that my cryptography-in-one-hour talk was the "most densely packed hour of information" he had ever seen. If being a good speaker pushed me away from having and conveying good ideas, my talks should have been getting progressively less informative, not more so. I posit that while PG is seeing a real effect, it's not the effect he thinks he's seeing. Rather than style detracting from substance, it seems to me that there's selection bias: In order to be invited to give talks, you must have at least one of {good ideas, good style}. As a result, those talks which are completely devoid of interesting ideas are inevitably given very well -- we never see talks which are given by poor speakers who have no interesting ideas. This in no way means that speaking well is responsible for the lack of substance.
演讲与写作是不同媒介，不能逐字互译；演讲的独特价值是让听众进入作者的思维与灵感。
演讲和写作比看起来更不同，是不同的媒介，所以伟大演讲的文字稿常显得单薄，正如朗读伟大文章会显得平淡。翻译中损失太多，这可能是 PG 遇到的问题：他先写文章再转成演讲。好比画家画了好画又想直接译成音乐，会因媒介限制而沮丧。在我看来，演讲的力量在于它临时创造了一个共享现实，让听众真正进入演讲者的头脑。这里有人提到听 PG 演讲后终于理解产生他那些想法的好奇心。也许观点本身没那么清晰，但引出观点的灵感更明显，而这往往同样重要（授人以渔）。
paul查看英文原文
Speaking and writing are more different than they seem. It's actually a different medium, and so a transcript of a great speech will often seem weak, just as a reading of a great essay may seem flat. Too much is lost in translation, which I think may the problem PG is encountering -- he first writes an essay and then translates it into a speech. Imagine a painter who creates a great painting and then tries to translate it directly into music -- will he be frustrated by the limitations of the medium? To me, the power of speaking is that it temporarily creates a shared reality where the listener can actually be in the mind of the speaker. Several people here have mentioned hearing PG speak and finally understanding the sense of curiosity that produces so many of his ideas. Maybe the idea itself isn't quite as clear, but the inspiration that lead to the idea is more obvious, and that's often just as important (teach a man to fish...).
同类还值得读
被低估的工程技能：把文章写好
Undervalued Engineering Skills: Writing Well
这篇文章讨论为什么“写得好”是被低估的工程能力，以及它如何在团队协作、系统设计和职业发展中持续带来回报。
写作方法2019 · 1,109 分 · 371 评4 条写作要点编辑精选每行只写一句话：让写作和修改都更轻松的排版法
Writing one sentence per line
这是 Derek Sivers 的一篇短文，主张写作时每行只放一个句子，而不是按段落排版。
写作方法2022 · 849 分 · 297 评4 条写作要点编辑精选书面沟通是远程工作的超级能力
Written communication is remote work super power
这篇文章讨论远程工作中书面沟通的价值，评论区则补充了异步与同步沟通的适用场景，并提醒读者：备忘录、结论先行、结构化命令格式等书面沟通传统早已有之。
写作方法2020 · 831 分 · 190 评4 条写作要点编辑精选如何写出有用的文字
How to Write Usefully
保罗·格雷厄姆在这篇文章里给"有用的写作"下了一个可操作的公式：有用≈重要×新颖×正确×清楚，任一项为零，整篇文章就等于零；他还主张敢下确定判断、删掉让自己心虚的句子。
写作方法2020 · 821 分 · 285 评4 条写作要点编辑精选如何写得更清楚、想得更清楚，并学会复杂材料（PDF）
How to write more clearly, think more clearly, and learn complex material [pdf]
这份 PDF 讨论如何把文章写清楚、把思路理清楚，并用写作来学习复杂材料。
写作方法2022 · 779 分 · 153 评4 条写作要点编辑精选