写作方法2014hemingwayapp.com
Hemingway 让你的文字更有力、更清晰
Hemingway makes your writing bold and clear
导读
这篇介绍 Hemingway App——一个用高亮长句、被动语态和副词来提示文风问题的在线写作检查工具。它值得写作者读，因为它把"简明写作"的常见规则做成即时反馈，但评论区也提出了重要反驳：这些指标只能防初学者的毛病，不能当成写作标准，句式长短、被动与副词本身都是表达工具。
可以直接用的写作要点
- 01
把长句、被动语态、副词当成"提示"而非"禁令"，先判断它们是否服务于节奏、语气或强调，再决定改不改。
- 02
警惕只用字数、句长这类可量化指标衡量好坏：机器能查出臃肿，却查不出平庸，节奏与语感要自己判断。
- 03
刻意练习句式变化——长句与短句、复杂句与简单句交替使用，可以为不同的效果（正式、亲近、紧迫）服务。
- 04
对高产写作者来说，把工具当作"漏网之鱼的最后一道筛子"，而不是替代自己逐篇编辑的借口。
HN 评论精选
工具能提示通用规则，但不能把规则当成绝对标准。
有意思的是，把海明威自己的文字粘进去，能看看他"犯"了什么错。说真的，这是个指出通用写作经验的简单好办法，但我希望它别那么教条：并非每个长句都是坏句，并非每个被动句都是坏句，也并非每个副词都是坏副词。另外，作为一个copy editor，我忍不住注意到这个帮你改写作的app自己写的是"Aim for 2 or less"，而不是"2 or fewer"。
jawns查看英文原文
You know what's fun? Pasting in text from Ernest Hemingway and seeing what he did wrong. But seriously, this is a nice, simple way to point out some general rules of thumb for improving writing, although I would love for it to be less proscriptive. Not every long sentence is a bad sentence, not every passive-voice sentence is a bad sentence, and not every adverb is a bad adverb. Oh, and by the way, the copy editor in me can't help but notice that an app that's intended to help you improve your writing tells you to "Aim for 2 or less" adverbs, rather than "Aim for 2 or fewer."
机器指标无法产生好文章，只会压制必要的长句和被动表达。
我觉得HemingwayApp背后的逻辑是错的：海明威本人就写长句，而且长句在他的写作里很重要；被动语态在好文章里同样重要。你不能用机器指标去强求"好写作"，那只会制造平庸、让人"因为规则必须遵守"而盲从。就像我写代码，绝不愿让程序告诉我"这个函数超过10行了"——500行的函数也可能必须且很好。这种自动评判是给不懂自己在强求什么的管理者用的，可以说是"尖头老板"式的编辑器。
acqq查看英文原文
I believe the logic behind HemingwayApp is misguided: Hemingway the writer actually wrote long sentences and they were actually important in his writing. Passive is also important in good writing. You can't use machine metrics to force "good writing" you can only enforce mediocrity and the following some random rules "because the rules have to be followed." Likewise, I as a writer of the software would absolutely hate to run some program to tell me "this function has more than 10 lines" or whatever. If I wrote 500 lines function it doesn't mean it shouldn't be that long: there are examples where exactly such functions are still necessary and good. Such automatic evaluations are for managers who probably don't understand what they enforce. Pointy-haired bosses, if you will. So I see HemingwayApp as the pointy-haired-editor app. (Edit: Improving the text based on the human input, thanks Agathos!)
句式选择服务于节奏和语气，写作需要的是更多工具而非更少。
这建立在很多错误假设上。它想执行的"规则"充其量是给新手的辅助轮，帮他们避开臃肿浮夸的文风。但"短句优于长句、简单句优于复杂句"这个假设本身就是错的。选择哪种句式、或交替使用，有各种理由：你可能在意节奏，也可能想建立某种语气、距离感、亲疏或正式程度。我们文化里有一种对清晰、简短、简单的奇怪执念，仿佛这些是写作唯一的优点。其实你需要的工具越多越好：从句与并列、圆周句与松散句、左分支与右分支、从属结构、修辞手法——有时更长更复杂的句子能带来更丰富密集的表达。所幸近年有些书在反击这种"紧缩式"写作观，比如 Brooks Landon 的《Building Great Sentences》。
buzzcut查看英文原文
This is built on so many bad assumptions. At best the "rules" it's trying to enforce are training-wheel rules, the sorts of rules given to novice writers to help them avoid flabby, purple writing. But the assumption that short sentences are better than long sentences, or that simple sentences are better than complex sentences is just wrong. There are all kinds of reasons why you might use one type of sentence over the other or vary them for effect. You might be concerned about rhythm, or you might be attempting to establish a certain tone, distance, closeness, formality, or lack of. We have this weird cultural obsession with the clarity, brevity, and simpleness of writing. Jacques Barzun even wrote a writing manual called Simple and Direct, as if these are the only virtues to be found in writing. But I think you want as many tools as possible to achieve the effects you want. There is a huge rich tradition here, that we've largely lost, a tradition that teaches about hypotactic and paratactic sentences, that teaches about periodic and loose sentences, that teaches how to make left and right branching sentences, that teaches subordination, that teaches rhetorical devices, and that advocates (at times) longer, more complex sentences for richer and denser writing. Thankfully there are a number of books out (some of them) recently that seem to be fighting back against the austerity view of writing. They include, if you're interested: - Brooks Landon, Building Great Sentences - Stanley Fish, How to Write a Sentence - Virginia Tufte, Artful Sentences, Syntax as Style - Richard Lanham, Analyzing Prose I'd just add, there is nothing wrong with being simple and clear. There is nothing wrong with cutting out needless or weak adverbs. But there is something wrong with worshiping the austerity style as, at all times, the best and the only way to go. There are lots and lots of reasons and occasions to deviate from it, but the style orthodoxy these days is the one assumed by that (admittedly cool) website.
对高产写作者，实时文风检查能兜住漏网的小毛病，但应是工具而非替代编辑。
我会很爱用这个。我靠写作吃饭，每周产出量大得惊人，虽然我不推卸逐篇编辑的责任，但敌不过大数定律，每周总有些低级错误或坏习惯漏网。我多年来一直渴望有个实时文风编辑器。自动纠错不错（而且常出错，那是另一回事），但多数自动纠错只限拼写和语法，而Hemingway按可读性来筛，这很酷也很实用。不过我不会把写的一切都粘进去，我想要Word、Google Docs的插件和API。
jonnathanson查看英文原文
I'm going to love using this. I write for a living, so I write a maddening volume of output per week. While I don't absolve myself of the need to edit everything, I'm working against the law of large numbers. Some stupid errors, or bad stylistic habits, are going to slip through the net every week. I've been jonesing for a real-time style editor for years. Autocorrect is fine and dandy (and often wrong, but that's another story). But most autocorrect systems limit themselves to spelling and grammar. Hemingway selects for readability. That's very cool and very useful. That said, I'm probably not going to copy & paste everything I write into the Hemingway editing environment. I'd love plug-ins and APIs for Word, Google Docs, etc. If you make these, I will use them, and I will bug the living shit out of every writer I know to do the same.
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