💾 Archived View for dioskouroi.xyz › thread › 24915774 captured on 2020-10-31 at 00:56:10. Gemini links have been rewritten to link to archived content
-=-=-=-=-=-=-
________________________________________________________________________________
I've been writing for several years, and the more I blog, write training materials, or just write to customers, three things keep helping me improve:
1) Less is more.
A) Write all you like, and then cut out all the stuff that doesn't matter. Like the way you just said the same thing 3 times in a row.
B) The less you _say_ the less someone has to argue with. The opposite is also true
C) Stick to main points and save gory details for later, unless you're in the "Gory Details" section already.
2) Read your writing out loud. What looks great on the page might sound terrible aloud. If it sounds terrible aloud, then it'll be awkward for others to read, too.
3) Just write. Get the words onto the page. This is the hardest but most important thing. Don't pay attention to form, redundancy, spelling, grammar, or redundancy. Just get the words down. These so-called brain dumps will help you get expressive. Then you can edit the heck out of yourself as mentioned in 1 and 2.
4) Okay, a fourth. No matter what you write, read Steven King's "On Writing" to find out what it means to "kill your darlings". Epic book.
In regards to point 2: Having kids and reading tons of books out loud to them has really impressed upon me how important this is. Reading my own writing out loud has been a real turning point for me in developing my writing skills.
I use the text to speech in my articles as a 'read it out loud' exercise.
I do too and it truly makes a difference. When I read something out loud im still biased as my own voice somehow matches with my internal voice I hear when I'm silent reading. When it's read out loud with a different voice it registers completely differently.
Thanks for sharing these observations. Im not much of a writer but would love to improve on my writing skills. I personally have the most problem with 3 and the only way I could get more productive brain dumps is to record myself talking freely instead, then rewrite it. But this is a time consuming process and was wondering what kind of exercises/drills I could use to ease the brain dump constipation. To me there's something that blocks me when I attempt to write something down freely but I feel that that the right exercises would ease it. I feel like Im making a wrong step somewhere that makes me become self conscious at the wrong moment.
For me, the following exercise solved this problem for the most part:
Close your eyes and start typing. Don't stop until you're done.
Then let the editing begin :)
Definitely these two:
1. Good writing is clear
4. Good writing is concise
Use a simple, reduced vocabulary, as your readers are likely to have English as a second language (e.g.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-44569277
). And as Richard Feynman pointed out, try explaining it to a child. If you can't go back and rewrite it.
Don't use (modern) slang, and avoid writing 'conversational' English.
It's "lessons" not "learnings". How much have you eaten? How many eatings have you had? Ugh.
Don't use 'ping' or 'reach out' (you're not the Four Tops).
And what on earth is "welp/whelp" that people have started using in the last couple of years? It's "well, for one thing..."
This feedback presumes that all writing is intended for a specific, professional audience. Good writing is not limited to a single audience, and good writers will consider their audience when making choices. If a writer goes against the 'rules' you've just shared without much thought into whether or not they apply to their current goals... there is a problem. But there is likewise a problem in blindly following rules.
The rules change based on what you are writing, why, and to whom.
Personally, the main motivation I have is to improve my writing for documentation that's intended to be read by coworkers (a specific, professional audience.) I wouldn't be surprised if most people on HN feel the same way.
Agreed. If I'm writing an English novel, I wouldn't be writing it in simple and terse sentences.
"Welp" might be a regional dialect, but it is used a bit differently from "well," evoking resignation about something disappointing that can't be changed. "Welp, with the gas out, we can't use the range and oven to cook the nice dinner we planned, so we'll heat something up in the microwave instead." People who say "welp" also say "well," so it makes sense to distinguish them in writing. That's not to say "welp" is appropriate diction for every kind of writing and every kind of audience, but where it's appropriate, it's appropriate.
"Whelp" has a standard English meaning, but I suppose you might see it used to mean "welp" as well. I dislike this spelling, because in my experience, people who pronounce "whale" and "wail" differently also pronounce "whelp" (the dog one) and "welp" (resignation) differently, but I don't know if that is universally true.
This one seems to be 100% USA, and then spread over social media. The same as Valley-speak became really popular after Clueless came out in the 90s. I can't recall seeing 'welp' anywhere before 2017.
Yes, I speak english as a second language since grade school... And never stumbled upon this word until recently. This is the first time I read the actual meaning, also. Had no idea what it meant.
I just checked my chat history - I used it in 2013, and there's a huge flood of "welp" from my chat partner between 2015 and 2019. (In 2020, the ball is on my side of the court again, it seems. Welp.)
Idle curiosity: what system(s) are you using that you have chat history going back that far and can easily search it?
XMPP (Jabber) :) The client is Gajim. While not a perfect client, having all my history in it forces me to stay loyal.
I'm glad I'm more of a language descriptivist instead of prescriptivist because none of your examples bother me.
_>It's "lessons" not "learnings". How much have you eaten How many eatings have you had? Ugh._
Does the word _"drinks"_ also bother you? (As in _"How many drinks have you had?"_) (My previous comment about that:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17020434
)
And what about everybody including today's English PhDs incorrectly using plural _"you"_ as singular you? The word "thou" was already the correct word for the singular and intimate relation. The famous song title should be _"Thou Art My Sunshine"_ not the incorrect _"You Are My Sunshine"_. :-)
https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/9780/did-english...
Does a language get to _change_ and _evolve_ at all? If yes, who should decide? A language committee or bottom-up crowdsource language speakers? When does the previous "incorrect and criticized" usage become "correct and accepted"?
> Does the word "drinks" also bother you?
No, but if you went to a pub and had several 'drinkings', then yes.
"Learnings" is incorrect.
> Does a language get to change and evolve at all?
Yes, and despite my dislike for "learnings" it looks like it is here to stay unfortunately. It's "business English", amplified by the internet. When I tell friends and family about "learnings" their response is, to put it mildly, "who are these idiots?"
Historical language evolution is towards shorter words, when those words are heavily used. Who knows how the Internet is going to change the language?
I think you'll appreciate Suzie Dent's twitter account:
https://twitter.com/susie_dent
_>"Learnings" is incorrect._
Not arguing with you but genuinely asking a question because I'm an armchair linguist that wants to dissect what's truly bothering you...
Why is "learnings" _incorrect_ but most of these other words ending in "-ings" acceptable? :
https://www.thefreedictionary.com/words-that-end-in-ings#w10
In other words, what's the invisible rule that makes words like "readings" for "reading"/"read", "greetings" for "greeting"/"greet", etc _not_ attract as much language policing?
Trivia.... Apparently _"learnings"_ has been around since at least 1483 according to Oxford English Dictionary:
https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/118379/first-use...
Thanks.
> has been around since at least 1483
I should have guessed that it would have been used "before".
> what's truly bothering you...
I should say "Learnings sounds incorrect to me". Just the use of it makes me cringe. Just like nails across a blackboard.
Ironically, I do quite enjoy "obscure" English, in the sense that the US use 'fall' and 'soccer', both of which are "old" English, but fallen out of use in the UK.
When you write for a general educated audience, it's best to avoid words that will strike their ear as out-of-place, uneducated, or unexpected. You don't want readers to stumble over words or turns of phrase that sound ugly or unfamiliar to them. It distracts from the message.
From the perspective of descriptive linguistics, "learnings" may be acceptable, but descriptive linguistics isn't the only factor governing how writing is received. It should be avoided unless you're writing for an audience in which it's already in general use.
The issue isn't rules about forming nouns from present participles, but custom and usage in the general population and in that section of the population who read and write at an educated level. It's a matter of judgement and style. What is customary changes over time, but that doesn't mean it should be ignored.
As to your final point, many words were in use in 1483 (and 1943) that would be out of place today.
They sound odd because they aren't often used. But English has neat rules for creating words from other words. Nouns to verbs, adverbs etc.
They are 'wrong' in that they aren't in the dictionary (yet). They are 'right' because they are correctly constructed by the rules.
I say that as a 'programmer' or 'coder' who does 'computing' on a 'computer'. I could be a 'painter' who does 'painting' (and produces a 'painting'!) Or a doctor who does doctoring. And on and on.
Your stackexchange post corrects itself fruther down. Ye was the plural and thee the singular. You was accusative.
Like many on HN, I admire the simplified language guidelines [0]that the UK GOV network of informational sites imposes on itself. A government has a civic duty to make regulatory and legal information as easy to understand as possible, for the widest gamut of possible readers who are subject to the laws of the land.
However, those sites have a captive audience: anyone smarter than the 'lowest common denominator' UK GOV target reader, any reader who might have appreciated a more concise and less 'hand-held' style, is going to keep reading anyway, because the information is important and non-negotiable.
Outside of that context, most pieces you might like to read were commissioned with maximum word-counts, varying levels of assumed readership skill and prior knowledge, and diverse other factors that defy any 'universal style-guide', such as TFA is trying to formulate.
For instance, I write about technology for a living. Those commissions have word-count restrictions that force me to either:
- Say less, so that I can maintain a level of English suitable for a moderately-skilled non-English speaker (As you can imagine, the editor does not want me to 'say less').
- Use more compressed and concise language that may be more challenging for the non-native reader (because concision can be antithetical to simplicity [and my editor also wants prose that is accessible to the widest number of readers without alienating the target demographic for that particular piece]).
- Write boldly and use footnotes and references to justify the claims I am making, because:
a) I don't have enough word-count for 'explainers' and 'box-outs'
b) I'm expected to deliver a _lot_ of information, and
c) I'm expected to write in the simplest style available, depending on the intent of the commission.
It's bad enough that the dictates of SEO have dumbed down so much content from once-great news and analysis providers over the last ten years. Let's not support any further race to the bottom, but rather aim to write lean and information-rich material in a style that's matched to the readership.
[0]
https://www.gov.uk/guidance/content-design/writing-for-gov-u...
The word count is interesting. Presumably that's to approximately fill a "page", and provide a "familiar feel" to all articles on a site written by different authors?
That's a good link and states what I was trying to say:
"""Good content is easy to read
Good online content is easy to read and understand.
It uses:
short sentences
sub-headed sections
simple vocabulary
This helps people find what they need quickly and absorb it effortlessly.
The main purpose of GOV.UK is to provide information - there’s no excuse for putting unnecessarily complicated writing in the way of people’s understanding."""
> Presumably that's to approximately fill a "page", and provide a "familiar feel" to all articles on a site written by different authors?
No, a word count is dictated either by the fact that the article is intended for print as well as (or instead of) the web, or else the latest SEO voodoo rumor suggests that this month 2k word articles are doing better than 3k word articles.
> or else the latest SEO voodoo rumor suggests that this month 2k word articles are doing better than 3k word articles.
Is that really a thing? Sounds awful.
I also write for a living. The maximum word count often has more to do with how much the client is willing to pay than space or SEO concerns.
I think Stephen King was quoting someone else when he said "I wrote a novel because I didn't have time to write a short story".
In my experience, getting the same core information into a smaller word count is extra work, not less.
He was paraphrasing Pascal: "I would have written a shorter letter, but I did not have the time".
I agree with the general point, but when a writer has a commercial relationship based on word counts, it changes the equation. I dislike word-count based contracts for that reason, but when the CEO of Widget Company Ltd hires me to ghost-write his blog articles, he isn't usually receptive to "you can have a 1000-word article for $400 or an 800-word article for $500".
English is my fourth language. I hate seeing advice like "use simple, reduced vocabulary". Dumbing everything down is not a way to go.
Feynman said, that if you cannot explaind it to a child you do not understand it, not that you should communicate with everyone like they were kids.
> Feynman said, that if you cannot explaind it to a child you do not understand it, not that you should communicate with everyone like they were kids.
That's not what I said, there was a full stop, not a comma. I was applying Feynman's idea to writing, if you can't explain something simply in plain English, you really should rewrite it to reach a wider audience.
> I hate seeing advice like "use simple, reduced vocabulary".
Sure, and if articles are written 'normally', for people with English as a second language, that means that they will learn more English words when they encounter new ones.
However "I" is one person, and an author wants to reach the widest audience, with the lowest common denominator. I don't understand much German or French, for example, but an article written in simple German or French is much more accessible to me (the lowest common denominator).
Writing is about reaching all of your audience.
I think it boils down to "don't use a five dollar word when a fifty cent word will do".
It's not a matter of always using simple language, sometimes that doesn't cut it. Some concepts can't be broken down to the simplest words and still keep the quality of the conversation, the precision, the density of information.
I think it's just better to keep language as simple as it can be, as simple as the topic dictates. Don't complicate it just for the sake of sounding smart if the discussion doesn't require it.
> Writing is about reaching all of your audience.
Sorry to be nitpicking. It sounds like what you really mean is "writing is about reaching the widest audience possible". I would argue that it's not true. Writers can try to reach any limited slice of the public they dream of, and nothing more beyond that.
That means writing doesn't need to be as simple as possible. Merely as simple as needed.
Simple, reduced vocabulary is not dumbing things down. It is about using most common words available for the usage.
Exactly. The number of times I read "utilize" or "leverage" seemingly because the author doesn't want to say "use" is very high.
"leverage" in particular seems to get over-used, even in cases where there is nothing approaching _actual_ leverage.
Make the reader think about _your actual point_; anytime you make them instead think about your word choice (in the form of "why did they use _that_ word?!"), you're reducing the information transfer and effectiveness of your writing.
Welp/whelp means “well fuck”, but less intense.
Hi everyone, OP here. Writing has always been a struggle for me. I just started to post consistently on this blog two weeks ago. Didn't expect this to get to the front page of HN. I hope you guys find it helpful. I'd appreciate any feedback or comment on the post!
P.S: Fixed all the grammatical errors in the post.
Thanks for making the post. Focusing on creating a clear thesis at the start of your blog will help your readers understand the purpose of your post.
The first paragraph communicates you've struggled with writing in the past, the second para says writing advice is often low quality, and the third paragraph explains the characteristics of good writing (hints at the thesis).
You could make a single thesis like this: "This post explains the characteristics of good writing and how I was able to improve my writing skills."
You could continue with "learning to write well was a great personal struggle, especially because writing training materials didn't help". That could also be considered a separate thesis for a different post.
Paragraphs like these can be made more concise:
> Most writers struggle to write well when the subjects use technical terms. Technical terms are confusing when they are not introduced properly. This technique is helpful when communicating complex information that requires technical terms. When you introduce complex information, design the sentence that it appears in, so that you can locate that term at the end.
Here's how you could reword it:
Technical writing is difficult, especially when the terminology is not properly introduced. It's best to introduce technical terms at the end of sentences.
Hey Adam, the content itself is great and the tips are bang on. However, I think you should proof read the article again. An article on 'Improving Your Writing' loses a lot of credibility when it has sentences like:
> The character, 'hotel' has does an action 'wanted'.
which should be:
> The character, 'hotel', has an action, 'wanted'.
It also seems like you rely on a single source, Williams and Colomb (1990). Is this your personal summary of that book? Do you recommend reading it, or do you believe your post captures the most important points?
Hi there,
1. Fixed the mistake :)
2. Yes, totally recommend it. I've read a few books on writing and I think this is the best so far. The way the authors discuss the mechanics of writing is refreshing. It'll give you a good framework not just to write, but also to think.
3. This post encapsulates what I learned from the book and my experience to improve my writing skill.
Readers might also enjoy _You Might as Well Be a Great Copy Editor_.
https://blog.regehr.org/archives/1471
Discussed 4 months ago:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23631027
As a non native english-speaker, my struggles in my original language is finishing sentences early instead doing long ones. Sometimes I write long phrases, full of commas, semicolons, etc. I found that in enlish people tend to be more conservative when writing sentences.
Native English speaker here. For me, any sentence with more than one comma is telling me that it's not one sentence. It's two, three, or four sentences. And to be clear, I'm talking about sentences that are very long, not sentences that contain a list of items such as the previous sentence. Example:
-----------------------------------------------------------
The more I write, the more I realize that sentence structure matters, as does grammar, and even spelling, and also choice of words, which affects some readers for whom English is a non-primary language.
As I write more, I realize that sentence structure, grammar, and spelling matter. My choice of words is important because unnecessary complexity may negatively affect some readers.
-----------------------------------------------------------
It wasn't always this way. 50 years ago, it was common for sentences to be much longer. I often read stories to my wife that were written in the 50's, 60's, and 70's. They are personal accounts, not professional writing. Life stories. They quite often include sentences that take more than one breath to read aloud, because they are so incredibly long that they deplete me of oxygen before I can finish reading the sentence, which I do find quite difficult to read since I am now concentrating on my breathing instead of on the written word, which is not just awkward but also distracting.
YMMV.
This is also the case in my native language (French), I assume it's pretty common for Latin languages.
I have troubles, I guess, to know exactly when to period or comman depending on the sound of the pause. To me it is like everything is short paused, so everything will be a comma :D
I only speak English but share this hypothesis based on reading translated novels from Latin language writers. Jose Saramago (Portuguese) is a striking example. Beautiful stuff but characteristically different from how native English speakers structure things.
Regarding rule two, cohesion, I remember being struck by the writing in this _New Yorker_ piece from 2011 on the subject of Rwandan bicycle racers. This goes beyond good writing. The writer didn't merely begin his sentences with what he had just said or with what he could count on being familiar to the reader. I noticed that the writer would take a paragraph and somehow manage to raise a question in my mind, and then in the next paragraph he would answer that question. This happened over and over.
Give it a read!
https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2011/07/11/climbers-phili...
“Regular patterns of drought and precipitation have been found to coincide with cycles of sunspot activity”
which can be simplified to:
“Regular patterns of drought and precipitation coincide with cycles of sunspot activity”
Not only the phrase “have been found” adds nothing to the prose, it also does not state the subject. Removing the phrase will make the prose above more concise.
This, and by leaving out the weasly "have been found" you take ownership of the statement, which forces you to be more careful and critical when citing other people's results.
That's not how science works. "Have been found" is not a weasel phrase, it's an accurate description of empirical observations.
It is a weasel phrase: It gets you out of citing your source for the information, which deprives the reader of judging its accuracy for themselves. I'd probably write it this way:
"Jones (2018) showed that regular patterns of drought and precipitation coincide with cycles of sunspot activity."
It also implies you weren't the one to find it and are you relaying that information to the reader.
OP here. Taking ownership of the statement is an interesting perspective. I've never thought of that. In my experience, when I take ownership, my writing tends to feel more honest. I acknowledge what I know or don't know, which makes the writing clearer for the readers.
I'm a little cautious of that. “have been found” implies a correlation but reserves some doubt; to omit it is to say the correlation is extremely strong, effectively beyond doubt. That's a strong implication. To leave that quaifier phrase in suggests the author recognises the signal is noisy and some other experts may disagree about the correlation being present.
Anyway, I really appreciate this kind of thing. There's too much bullshit writing and I'm glad someone is pushing back.
(Edited for clarity)
I love youtube, but so many videos would be improved if a little writing was done before hand, and then the video edited to a script.
This is a good essay by Orwell, that's related.
"Politics and the English Language"
https://www.orwell.ru/library/essays/politics/english/e_poli...
To me, the hardest part of writing is getting the first draft done. I'm a good enough self critic to do a reasonable job of editing, but the writer's block is real and awful.
The standard advice is to silence the internal critic and write. Of course, it's easier said than done.
I'm supposed to be writing a paper. I'm commenting on HN instead.
Start with a mind map.
If the goal of your writing is clear, it's easy to make an outline once the mind map is done. If the goal isn't clear, start asking questions about why it isn't clear and expand the mind map until there's enough there to continue. Sometimes this requires research while constructing the mind map, especially for assigned academic writing. Tag pages with sticky notes or copy data with references into a large research doc as you go.
Once the outline is done, the rest is straightforward. An editor always helps if you can afford one, but you don't always need to agree with the suggested changes.
In my experience it’s got more to do with expectations.
https://karimdaghari.netlify.app/blog/get-things-done/
I always think about the reader: what do I want them to learn or understand? Then, how can I best get there without losing their attention, and, if context allows, make it entertaining.
Good post. There is one important topic not touched upon yet: clear structure. Without a strong organising structure and logic, it’s hard to navigate, especially for non-prose. I can highly recommend the book “The pyramid principle” as a way to really improve structured writing.
Looking back, I always struggle with writing.
Shouldn't it be "struggled"? (Sorry, I had to.)
"The principle suggests us to focus..."
Should not it be:
"The principle suggests that we focus..."?
> I can bear the pain of writing in high school, but I almost gave up in university
And this should be "could"?
Fixed it :)
As a non-native English speaker, your blog post and your interactions and feedback to replies and suggestions to fix some "mistakes" on your blog post is an inspiration for me, because I've always struggled to start writing fearing that I'll make "banal" and "obvious" mistakes that will decrease my credibility on the subject I'm writing about.
A story has two components – characters and actions.
Three components... the third is A POINT.
Unless the path of the story's narrative promises to lead somewhere, the reader loses interest and stops reading.
From the article title: "How to Write Well...". Surely instead "How to Write Effectively..."?
Aside from that, I understand the OP’s pain in learning how to write. My initiation by fire in the craft of writing was when I supervised my first PhD. It was like like the labours of Sisyphus.
One principle I can add to the list of principles that is evolving here, if you think your book/thesis is finished, it probably isn’t. That is why God gave us Editors. Notice I have capitalized both God and Editors.
Some good tips, but I read the section on nominalisation three times and I can't for the life of me tell you what nominalisation means or how to apply it (or not).
However, it piqued my interest in the concept, and this article helped me get a little closer:
https://unilearning.uow.edu.au/academic/3b.html
Pinker writes a useful explanation:
> A process called nominalization takes a perfectly spry verb and embalms it into a lifeless noun by adding a suffix like –ance, –ment, or –ation. Instead of affirming an idea, you effect its affirmation; rather than postponing something, you implement a postponement. Helen Sword calls them "zombie nouns" because they lumber across the scene without a conscious agent directing their motion.[0]
There is a lot more detail in his book "Sense of Style: The Thinking Person's Guide to Writing in the 21st Century"
[0]:
https://stevenpinker.com/files/pinker/files/why_academics_st...
Thanks!
Quick Summary:
This is clear writing?
2. Because we know nothing about the local conditions, we could not determine how effectively the committee had allocated funds to areas that need the most assistance.
We can't tell if the committee spent wisely because we don't know our way around here.
Your version shows the problem with taking advice to "omit needless words" too far. The main virtue of good writing is clarity, and that often needs more words than a maximally compressed sentence. Your version omits useful information, is imprecise, and uses a vague idiom that is easily misinterpreted. In short, it doesn't say the same thing.
The first example smacks of writing which is not so much unclear as it is deliberately banal and devoid of impact, as famously described by Orwell here:
https://www.orwell.ru/library/essays/politics/english/e_poli...
The later is hardly clear writing. I think you've mistaken terseness and informality for clarity.
You misconstrue "wise spending" with "allocating funds to areas that need the most assistance". The two are not informationally equivalent.
You leave out the information that you know nothing about local conditions. Presumably you've jumped to conclusions about what local conditions means.
And lastly, it must be pointed out that a perfectly valid interpretation of your version is that you were unable to form an opinion on the committees spending because you got lost in the carpark/ building/town...
I think one could arguably simplify the original further to:
"Knowing nothing about local conditions, we could not determine how effectively the committee allocated funds to areas needing the most assistance."
But it's very hard to move past that without fundamental information changing, and even my changes I accept are a little bit stylistically subjective, albeit with a marginally lower word count to convey fundamentally the same information.