语言与文风2014pchiusano.github.io编辑精选
互联网把我们都变成了谨小慎微的写作者
The Internet has made defensive writers of us all
导读
这篇文章讨论互联网公共讨论如何让写作者变得“防御性”：为了避免被断章取义、挑刺或围攻，人们不断收敛修辞、增加限定，结果文字变得乏味。对写作者而言，值得思考的是如何在公开传播中既保持清晰和准确，又不把个人声音与锋利表达一并丢掉。
可以直接用的写作要点
- 01
公开写作时要预判最不宽容的读者，把关键限定、定义和语境写清楚，但不要用过度限定掩盖自己的观点。
- 02
区分“防御性写作”和“更精确的写作”：该删的是含糊、浮夸和坏文风，不该删的是清晰立场与个人声音。
- 03
网络传播中句子可能被单独截取，因此容易误解的修辞要自带语境，别假设读者会读完全文。
- 04
面向陌生读者写作时，开头和关键句要能独立成立；复杂观点要用具体例子降低误读成本。
HN 评论精选
网络论坛常把交流当成自尊竞技，专挑能让你显得愚蠢的解释，导致人们不敢表达异见。
我每天都看到这种现象。对很多人来说，在线论坛交流是一种自尊竞技：他们来这里狙击和碾压别人。只要能把你的话解释得让你显得愚蠢，他们就会采用那种解释；只要能找到字面矛盾，他们就会按字面来；如果你说了违背常规观点的话，他们就会站在“常规”的城堡上往你头上倒火油，哈哈大笑；如果这些都不行，他们就会指出语法错误。我看到人们因此不敢让自己奇怪的观点自由表达，这确实抑制了自由交流。我相信社会会经历这场火的考验并变得更有教养，我们都会学会说“去他的”，让自己的独特酱汁流淌出来。
swayvil查看英文原文
I see it every day. For many people communication in online forums is an ego sport. They are here to snipe and crush. If they can interpret your words in a way that makes you look foolish, then that is the interpretation that they will speak to. If they can find a literal inconsistency, then they will take the literal approach. If you speak in contradiction of the conventional view then they will stand atop castle conventionality and pour flaming oil on your head, laughing. If all else fails they will point out grammatic errors. I see people reacting to this environment. They are hesitant to let their strange opinions dangle free. It definitely inhibits free communication. I have faith that we will, as a society, pass through this fire and emerge educated. We will all learn to just say "fuck it" and let our special sauce flow.
收敛修辞往往就是写作进步；所谓“个人风格”多数时候只是坏文笔。
我把这句话理解为“我成了一个更好的写作者”。99.99%的时候，你所认为的独特个人风格只是糟糕的写作。
idlewords查看英文原文
"I’ve also taken to toning down any rhetorical flourishes that could be interpreted uncharitably in a way that annoys some people. The result: boring writing stripped of a lot of my own personal style" I read this as "I've become a better writer". 99.99% of the time, what you consider your unique, personal style is just bad writing.
网络传播是一种取舍：免费获得巨大受众就别指望旧媒体式保护；复杂观点不能依赖读者读完整语境，片段会被单独审判。
我同意其他评论者：楼主所谓的“防御性”写作，有时只是更好、更细致的写作。归根结底这是取舍。你想要即时接触并影响互联网上数十亿人，而且还是免费的？那就别指望还能有过去只在期刊或地方报纸专栏发表时那种绝缘保护。相关例子是学术界的 Steven Salatia：他差点拿到伊利诺伊大学终身教职，却因关于以色列和巴勒斯坦的煽动性推文被董事会取消offer。他的辩护是：如果你读完整条推文流，就会看出我并不恨以色列，那些看似暴力的言论只是语境中的修辞。我理解他也同情他，但他对传播太天真：世界没时间探索你的“思想宫殿”，每个人都忙于自己的生活。若你想用抓人的片段谈复杂问题、在信息洪流中吸引注意，就不能指望读者自动补全语境。
danso查看英文原文
I have to agree with the other commenters that what this OP thinks of as "defensive" writing is sometimes just better, more nuanced writing. For me, it just boils down to a tradeoff. Oh, you want instant access and the ability to influence the billions of people who are on the Internet, and to do it for free? Then don't expect the insulation you get when your writing was previously restricted to a published journal or local newspaper column. Tangentially related: In the academic world, people have been abuzz about Steven Salatia, a professor who was nearly in the door as a tenured professor at University of Illinois until the board of trustees, made aware of his stream of inflammatory tweets about Israel and Palestine, nixed the offer, leaving Salatia without a job: https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2014/09/10/steven-salaita-speaks-out-about-lost-job-offer-illinois Besides espousing the value of academic freedom, Salatia's defense has been: If you had only read my entire tweet stream, you would've seen that I don't hate Israel, and that my seemingly violent sentiments were just rhetorical flourishes when viewed in context. Sure, I see his argument and I empathize with him. But he's being naive and Pollyanish about communication. The world doesn't have time to explore your mind-palace...each of us are already preoccupied with our own lives and thoughts. If you wanted to make catchy soundbites over a complicated issue so that you could catch our attention amidst the global debate, well, the other side of catchy soundbites is that sometimes they catch you. Frankly, I don't think the world loses much if, when it comes to complex nuanced issues, we put down the Twitter client and put our thoughts in a medium (no pun intended with Medium) intended for expansive discussion. Does it slow you down? Sure. And that's a good thing.
防御式表达和进攻式夸张都是沟通问题；清晰但不夸张、不回避才是更有效的中间状态。
这种防御性沟通倾向对我来说线上线下都是问题。但老实说，我也看到相反极端的问题：创业圈里“ hustler”型的人采用进攻性、夸张的沟通风格，同样具有破坏性。多年来我越来越欣赏 pg 的随笔，它们示范了一种恰到好处的中间状态：他不留情面，但也不会夸张到以偏概全，因此他的写作反而更有效。
tkiley查看英文原文
This tendency toward defensive communication is a problem for me both online and offline. Although to be honest, I see the exact opposite extreme as a problem as well: hustler-type startup people tend to adopt an "offensive" hyperbolic communication style that can be just as disruptive. Over the years I have come to appreciate pg's essays as an example of the happy medium: he doesn't pull punches, but he doesn't generalize to the point of hyperbole either, and I find his writing style to be more effective because of this balance.
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