how to write naturally
February 21, 2006 4:28 PM Subscribe
There is something quite fundamental about informal writing that i just don't get. I find myself rewriting e-mails a number of times before it sounds spontaneous, and it still doesn't flow. Maybe its due to a background of formal reporting or too much conscious interference, but i think i'm missing something. How do i stop thinking and write more spontaneously?
The problem only occurs in writing. Once a pen is in my hand and trying to get that small talk onto paper, the mental process does not flow smoothly, it stutters and unleashes an overkill of conscious editing. Is there any tricks to gradually alter, or even find, my muse, like writing about the inside of a tennis ball, and how would you recommend i comfortably wrap up this post?
The problem only occurs in writing. Once a pen is in my hand and trying to get that small talk onto paper, the mental process does not flow smoothly, it stutters and unleashes an overkill of conscious editing. Is there any tricks to gradually alter, or even find, my muse, like writing about the inside of a tennis ball, and how would you recommend i comfortably wrap up this post?
If it's not to weird, try composing an e-mail by just saying aloud what you want to say and then transcribing it, without thinking about the fact that you're writing it.
For a conversational style, where several clauses are strung together, remember that the comma, semicolon and em-dash are your friends.
posted by maxreax at 4:32 PM on February 21, 2006
For a conversational style, where several clauses are strung together, remember that the comma, semicolon and em-dash are your friends.
posted by maxreax at 4:32 PM on February 21, 2006
To follow up on my own response, this is a list of tips for writers written my Leonard himself. It's geared more towards writers of fiction but you might find something useful in it.
posted by Evstar at 4:35 PM on February 21, 2006
posted by Evstar at 4:35 PM on February 21, 2006
Best answer: Just from reading your post here, I'd suggest a few more contractions to make things flow more informally. And avoid the clauses that remove you from the action, such as "I find myself."
Here's how I'd rewrite your post here if I were striving for informality. And let me note that I don't think your post here sounds that formal, though I know it's not this post you mean.
"I'm missing something fundamental about informal writing. I often rewrite e-mail shooting for that spontaneous feel, but it still doesn't flow. Maybe it's my own reporting background or that I'm just thinking too much, but I think I'm missing something. How do I stop thinking and write more spontaneously?"
posted by GaelFC at 4:43 PM on February 21, 2006
Here's how I'd rewrite your post here if I were striving for informality. And let me note that I don't think your post here sounds that formal, though I know it's not this post you mean.
"I'm missing something fundamental about informal writing. I often rewrite e-mail shooting for that spontaneous feel, but it still doesn't flow. Maybe it's my own reporting background or that I'm just thinking too much, but I think I'm missing something. How do I stop thinking and write more spontaneously?"
posted by GaelFC at 4:43 PM on February 21, 2006
Response by poster: i like his thoughts on "If it sounds like writing, I rewrite it." Thats similar to what i was trying to say. I have some unconscious urge to write like i'm writing, like its a test or something.
posted by ugrndhg at 4:46 PM on February 21, 2006
posted by ugrndhg at 4:46 PM on February 21, 2006
Response by poster: GaelFC, now just tell me exactly how you did that, or edit all my emails, and i'm laughing
posted by ugrndhg at 4:47 PM on February 21, 2006
posted by ugrndhg at 4:47 PM on February 21, 2006
Kerouac carried around a notebook and got in the habit of rapidly describing in text whatever he saw. He was trying to teach himself to express his ideas spontanously in writing, in the manner that jazz musicians express themselves.
Maybe such an exercise might help you?
Also, as a writer, I found I benefited enormously from improv comedy classes, and they forced you to structure your ideas simply and in the moment. Most of my writing now is an exercise in controlled improvisation -- I rarely have any clue where I'm headed when I write.
posted by Astro Zombie at 4:48 PM on February 21, 2006
Maybe such an exercise might help you?
Also, as a writer, I found I benefited enormously from improv comedy classes, and they forced you to structure your ideas simply and in the moment. Most of my writing now is an exercise in controlled improvisation -- I rarely have any clue where I'm headed when I write.
posted by Astro Zombie at 4:48 PM on February 21, 2006
Ironically, sometimes you have to rewrite and rewrite to get that casual, offhand tone.
posted by zadcat at 4:50 PM on February 21, 2006
posted by zadcat at 4:50 PM on February 21, 2006
I know what you mean! My writing tends to end up sounding too formal when I'm not careful, too. Which is really a contradiction in terms because if I have to work at sounding spontaneous, I'm already not being spontaneous. Aak. (On preview, what zadcat said!) In my case it's probably because English isn't my first language (though I picked it up at an early age) and I've spent a great amount of effort into not making mistakes when I write because I didn't want to sound dumb in school.
My hero is Douglas Adams! I've finally gotten around to reading The Salmon of Doubt recently and I'm just so amazed by the distinctively colloquial style of his essays, which are just like his fiction. And he makes it sound so easy! But I understand how difficult it is to actually to pull off. I hear he was a very, very slow writer, though, and missed deadlines constantly, so I guess one just has to keep working at it. Guess this isn't much help, but good luck!
posted by misozaki at 5:01 PM on February 21, 2006
My hero is Douglas Adams! I've finally gotten around to reading The Salmon of Doubt recently and I'm just so amazed by the distinctively colloquial style of his essays, which are just like his fiction. And he makes it sound so easy! But I understand how difficult it is to actually to pull off. I hear he was a very, very slow writer, though, and missed deadlines constantly, so I guess one just has to keep working at it. Guess this isn't much help, but good luck!
posted by misozaki at 5:01 PM on February 21, 2006
Write more.
Try just scribbling out two pages every day, total stream of consciousness.
Try participating in places like Metafilter or Salon's Table Talk, where there's enough give-and-take that you can start putting more importance on your ideas rather than the exact phrasing of them.
Try writing lots and lots of email to friends and family. I think I developed my writing style most by corresponding with witty, talented friends -- I just mercilessly stole their mannerisms while I developed my own.
Reading various informal websites and magazines helped a lot, too. The subject matter (and therefore my interest level!) varies, but pretty much everybody on Damn Hell Ass Kings (of which GaelFC is a member, if I'm remembering correctly) has a distinctive informal style.
It's practice, really. (And if you're me, you'll get so much practice that your formal writing will start to suffer.... sigh.)
posted by occhiblu at 5:04 PM on February 21, 2006
Try just scribbling out two pages every day, total stream of consciousness.
Try participating in places like Metafilter or Salon's Table Talk, where there's enough give-and-take that you can start putting more importance on your ideas rather than the exact phrasing of them.
Try writing lots and lots of email to friends and family. I think I developed my writing style most by corresponding with witty, talented friends -- I just mercilessly stole their mannerisms while I developed my own.
Reading various informal websites and magazines helped a lot, too. The subject matter (and therefore my interest level!) varies, but pretty much everybody on Damn Hell Ass Kings (of which GaelFC is a member, if I'm remembering correctly) has a distinctive informal style.
It's practice, really. (And if you're me, you'll get so much practice that your formal writing will start to suffer.... sigh.)
posted by occhiblu at 5:04 PM on February 21, 2006
From how your question is structured, I'd say you don't really have a problem -- your question is breezy yet clear, but it doesn't end well. Perhaps you just need to change how you self-analyze your writing?
I'd disagree with posters saying you should write in a stream-of-consciousness style. That way lies self-indulgence. I'd recommend writing something small-yet-specific (blog, movie review, short essay, etc), so you can focus on mastering a basic structure.
posted by frogan at 5:27 PM on February 21, 2006
I'd disagree with posters saying you should write in a stream-of-consciousness style. That way lies self-indulgence. I'd recommend writing something small-yet-specific (blog, movie review, short essay, etc), so you can focus on mastering a basic structure.
posted by frogan at 5:27 PM on February 21, 2006
Best answer: Every single sentence in your post has more than one clause in it! Subordinate or even coördinate clauses are way mroe common in written english than in spoken english. Keeping it closer to spoken english will make it feel more casual.
posted by aubilenon at 5:31 PM on February 21, 2006
posted by aubilenon at 5:31 PM on February 21, 2006
(To clarify, I meant using the stream-of-consciousness thing as a writing exercise to get your brain and hands used to writing quickly and not "filtering." I do *not* recommend writing things meant to be finished products in that way!)
posted by occhiblu at 5:43 PM on February 21, 2006
posted by occhiblu at 5:43 PM on February 21, 2006
Write with your eyes closed, then correct the errors later. I'm not kidding. It helped me a great deal to stop myself from wordsmithing as I went along.
posted by randomstriker at 5:52 PM on February 21, 2006
posted by randomstriker at 5:52 PM on February 21, 2006
I'm confused by your question. Do you mean "How do I quit caring so much about grammar, style and composition rules? How do I just write whatever comes into my head -- screw it if it isn't 'great writing'?" Or do you mean, "How do I compose well-written texts that sound informal and flow like good conversation?" I expect some people will interpret your question the first way and others the second way, and you'll get a bunch of conflicting answers.
As for the first (my English-teacher-be-damned) possibility, I agree with the stream-of-consciousness people. Personally, I find such writing unreadable (see here), but many people do it. They just spew their thought onto the page without any editing at all. Working on your typing skills helps. The faster you can type, the less you'll be tempted to edit. If you're a slow typist, you'll naturally edit as you type. Having practiced a lot, I can actually type faster than I can talk! So typing is actually a better medium for transferring my raw thoughts into the world than speech. Since I hate stream-of-consciousness writing, I really have to be careful!
If you're shooting for well-written informality, it's not easy. You say, "I find myself rewriting e-mails a number of times before it sounds spontaneous." That's exactly what good conversational writers do! They labor to achieve prose that sounds easy. They write first drafts that read like writing. Then they revise and revise and revise until they've rooted out all the stilted-sounding phrases. They use dictionaries and thesauri in search of breezy words. They study other writers who have mastered an off-the-cuff style.
From the wording of your question, it sound to me like you already know how to so this. You just need more confidence and more practice. You know that line about creativity being 90% perspiration? You need to sweat more!
(Here's a book that may help you: "Spunk & Bite : A writer's guide to punchier, more engaging language & style" by Arthur Plotnik.)
posted by grumblebee at 5:53 PM on February 21, 2006
As for the first (my English-teacher-be-damned) possibility, I agree with the stream-of-consciousness people. Personally, I find such writing unreadable (see here), but many people do it. They just spew their thought onto the page without any editing at all. Working on your typing skills helps. The faster you can type, the less you'll be tempted to edit. If you're a slow typist, you'll naturally edit as you type. Having practiced a lot, I can actually type faster than I can talk! So typing is actually a better medium for transferring my raw thoughts into the world than speech. Since I hate stream-of-consciousness writing, I really have to be careful!
If you're shooting for well-written informality, it's not easy. You say, "I find myself rewriting e-mails a number of times before it sounds spontaneous." That's exactly what good conversational writers do! They labor to achieve prose that sounds easy. They write first drafts that read like writing. Then they revise and revise and revise until they've rooted out all the stilted-sounding phrases. They use dictionaries and thesauri in search of breezy words. They study other writers who have mastered an off-the-cuff style.
From the wording of your question, it sound to me like you already know how to so this. You just need more confidence and more practice. You know that line about creativity being 90% perspiration? You need to sweat more!
(Here's a book that may help you: "Spunk & Bite : A writer's guide to punchier, more engaging language & style" by Arthur Plotnik.)
posted by grumblebee at 5:53 PM on February 21, 2006
People generally don't speak in complete sentences. There's lots of pauses, interruptions, run-ons, trail-offs, etc. The obvious solution is to just speak aloud as you write. Imagine you're talking directly to your target audience and let the words go out of your mouth and onto the page. If you screw up really badly don't go back and fix it right away, just keep going until the end.
posted by nixerman at 5:55 PM on February 21, 2006
posted by nixerman at 5:55 PM on February 21, 2006
Best answer: You're missing the you from your writing. It's definitely a hangover from the reporting: you're trained to take yourself out of it. Hell, you even literally missed out the I'm from:
Once a pen is in my hand and trying to get that small talk onto paper .
That's basically the difference between Gael's version and yours. His is more active, more personal. So less description of you and your state etc, more declaration of it. Less exposition and explaining everything; assume more of your reader:
"I find myself growing hungry and think I will go for some food"
"I'm starving, back in two mins"
posted by bonaldi at 6:14 PM on February 21, 2006
Once a pen is in my hand and trying to get that small talk onto paper .
That's basically the difference between Gael's version and yours. His is more active, more personal. So less description of you and your state etc, more declaration of it. Less exposition and explaining everything; assume more of your reader:
"I find myself growing hungry and think I will go for some food"
"I'm starving, back in two mins"
posted by bonaldi at 6:14 PM on February 21, 2006
The secret to informal communication is to write like you speak.
In fact that's the secret to most writing.
posted by unSane at 6:32 PM on February 21, 2006
In fact that's the secret to most writing.
posted by unSane at 6:32 PM on February 21, 2006
Response by poster: You know i am really quite impressed with the quality of repsonse to my less than perfect queston. You folks are going to keep me busy for a while. If you don't see any improvements, it's on my head, i think i will go for some food.
posted by ugrndhg at 6:41 PM on February 21, 2006
posted by ugrndhg at 6:41 PM on February 21, 2006
The secret to informal communication is to write like you speak. In fact that's the secret to most writing.
I dis... I don't agree. Because. Um. Hold on ... Um. If you write like you speak, you'll -- you know -- get all these ums and uhs and false starts and stuff in there. In your writing. You know what I mean? You know? And you'll be redundant and keep saying the same thing over and over. The goal ... I think ... is not to ... um ... write like you speak, because... Well... people -- when you speak, people don't have to follow each and every word, you know, because you use body language and inflection and there's a lot of redundancy, but when you read, you, you know, you read all the words. And words are all there are. The goal should be to give the ILLUSION of writing like you speak without actually writing like you speak. Which is hard work.
Read "Catcher in the Rye," "Huck Finn," and "The Color Purple."
posted by grumblebee at 6:47 PM on February 21, 2006
I dis... I don't agree. Because. Um. Hold on ... Um. If you write like you speak, you'll -- you know -- get all these ums and uhs and false starts and stuff in there. In your writing. You know what I mean? You know? And you'll be redundant and keep saying the same thing over and over. The goal ... I think ... is not to ... um ... write like you speak, because... Well... people -- when you speak, people don't have to follow each and every word, you know, because you use body language and inflection and there's a lot of redundancy, but when you read, you, you know, you read all the words. And words are all there are. The goal should be to give the ILLUSION of writing like you speak without actually writing like you speak. Which is hard work.
Read "Catcher in the Rye," "Huck Finn," and "The Color Purple."
posted by grumblebee at 6:47 PM on February 21, 2006
Let's take a look at the opening of "Catcher in the Rye":
If you really want to hear about it, the first thing you'll probably want to know is where I was born, and what my lousy childhood was like, and how my parents were occupied and all before they had me, and all that David Copperfield kind of crap, but I don't feel like going into it, if you want to know the truth. In the first place, that stuff bores me, and in the second place, my parents would have about two hemorrhages apiece if I told anything pretty personal about them. They're quite touchy about anything like that, especially my father. They're nice and all--I'm not saying that--but they're also touchy as hell. Besides, I'm not going to tell you my whole goddam autobiography or anything. I'll just tell you about this madman stuff that happened to me around last Christmas just before I got pretty run-down and had to come out here and take it easy.
The opening sentence immediately strikes me as off-the-cuff talk. But if I study it for a while, I can see that it's carefully wrought. If you read it out loud, you discover that it's exactly long enough. If it was shorter, it wouldn't have that spilling-over the top feeling; if it was longer, you wouldn't be able to say it in one breath.
Almost every sentence contains a surprising word or phrase (which must have taken Salenger to come up with): "David Copperfield kind of crap", "two hemorrhages apiece," "this madman stuff."
The piece has attitude. The narrator has opinions and biases and paranoias -- and all of these ticks hit you without Salenger explaining them to you. They seem to flow out of the prose. This must have been really hard to achieve: "If you really want to hear about it", "I don't feel like going into it", "that stuff bores me", "I'm not saying that", "I'm not going to tell you my whole goddamn autobiography or anything."
There's a feeling off breeziness, but there's no redundancy. Each sentence adds something new. It's hard to imagine it started out this way. To get this sort of easy tone, Salenger's manuscript must have stuttered and repeated itself in the first draft. But he weeded all that stuff out without pruning away too much. Very tough! Lots of perspiration!
posted by grumblebee at 7:05 PM on February 21, 2006
If you really want to hear about it, the first thing you'll probably want to know is where I was born, and what my lousy childhood was like, and how my parents were occupied and all before they had me, and all that David Copperfield kind of crap, but I don't feel like going into it, if you want to know the truth. In the first place, that stuff bores me, and in the second place, my parents would have about two hemorrhages apiece if I told anything pretty personal about them. They're quite touchy about anything like that, especially my father. They're nice and all--I'm not saying that--but they're also touchy as hell. Besides, I'm not going to tell you my whole goddam autobiography or anything. I'll just tell you about this madman stuff that happened to me around last Christmas just before I got pretty run-down and had to come out here and take it easy.
The opening sentence immediately strikes me as off-the-cuff talk. But if I study it for a while, I can see that it's carefully wrought. If you read it out loud, you discover that it's exactly long enough. If it was shorter, it wouldn't have that spilling-over the top feeling; if it was longer, you wouldn't be able to say it in one breath.
Almost every sentence contains a surprising word or phrase (which must have taken Salenger to come up with): "David Copperfield kind of crap", "two hemorrhages apiece," "this madman stuff."
The piece has attitude. The narrator has opinions and biases and paranoias -- and all of these ticks hit you without Salenger explaining them to you. They seem to flow out of the prose. This must have been really hard to achieve: "If you really want to hear about it", "I don't feel like going into it", "that stuff bores me", "I'm not saying that", "I'm not going to tell you my whole goddamn autobiography or anything."
There's a feeling off breeziness, but there's no redundancy. Each sentence adds something new. It's hard to imagine it started out this way. To get this sort of easy tone, Salenger's manuscript must have stuttered and repeated itself in the first draft. But he weeded all that stuff out without pruning away too much. Very tough! Lots of perspiration!
posted by grumblebee at 7:05 PM on February 21, 2006
_Writing with Power_ by Peter Elbow, addresses this problem at great length, and is chock full of good related advice.
posted by mecran01 at 7:09 PM on February 21, 2006
posted by mecran01 at 7:09 PM on February 21, 2006
Oscar Wilde: "To be natural is such a very difficult pose to keep up."
Everybody's right. You have to start by getting down exactly what you'd say. (People in this thread have recommended various techniques for doing this; try them and see what works for you.) It takes practice.
But don't stop there! As grumblebee correctly insists, unedited speech is a mess to read. So the next step is to edit ruthlessly till what you're saying is coherent and clear.
posted by tangerine at 7:12 PM on February 21, 2006
Everybody's right. You have to start by getting down exactly what you'd say. (People in this thread have recommended various techniques for doing this; try them and see what works for you.) It takes practice.
But don't stop there! As grumblebee correctly insists, unedited speech is a mess to read. So the next step is to edit ruthlessly till what you're saying is coherent and clear.
posted by tangerine at 7:12 PM on February 21, 2006
me
The secret to informal communication is to write like you speak. In fact that's the secret to most writing.
grumblebee
I dis... I don't agree. Because. Um. Hold on ... Um. If you write like you speak, you'll -- you know -- get all these ums and uhs and false starts and stuff in there. In your writing. You know what I mean? You know? And you'll be redundant and keep saying the same thing over and over. The goal ... I think ... is not to ... um ... write like you speak, because... Well... people -- when you speak, people don't have to follow each and every word, you know, because you use body language and inflection and there's a lot of redundancy, but when you read, you, you know, you read all the words. And words are all there are. The goal should be to give the ILLUSION of writing like you speak without actually writing like you speak. Which is hard work.
Read "Catcher in the Rye," "Huck Finn," and "The Color Purple."
I read all those a long time ago. I don't speak like that, and neither do you unless you are some kind of inarticulate dullard. Most people are perfectly capable of stringing a few sentences together verbally without sounding like a Valley girl.
Let me give you an example. I was working on a TV show which featured an incident that had taken place in a mall. The law was quite complicated and we were trying to explain it. An AP came in with a script which used the phrase 'an indoors public place'. I had to point out that probably no-one in the history of mankind had voluntarily used those words in that order.
It is quite possible to write elegant, structured prose which appears to be informal. And you don't have to be J D Salinger. You just have to use the words and turns of phrase you use in everyday speech. These differ from person to person which is why it is just as artificial to encourage someone who speaks quite formally to use mySpaceisms like 'brb LOL 111!!!!one!one'.
BTW the best artificial strategy I know for fake casual writing is to strike out all words with latin roots.
posted by unSane at 7:23 PM on February 21, 2006
The secret to informal communication is to write like you speak. In fact that's the secret to most writing.
grumblebee
I dis... I don't agree. Because. Um. Hold on ... Um. If you write like you speak, you'll -- you know -- get all these ums and uhs and false starts and stuff in there. In your writing. You know what I mean? You know? And you'll be redundant and keep saying the same thing over and over. The goal ... I think ... is not to ... um ... write like you speak, because... Well... people -- when you speak, people don't have to follow each and every word, you know, because you use body language and inflection and there's a lot of redundancy, but when you read, you, you know, you read all the words. And words are all there are. The goal should be to give the ILLUSION of writing like you speak without actually writing like you speak. Which is hard work.
Read "Catcher in the Rye," "Huck Finn," and "The Color Purple."
I read all those a long time ago. I don't speak like that, and neither do you unless you are some kind of inarticulate dullard. Most people are perfectly capable of stringing a few sentences together verbally without sounding like a Valley girl.
Let me give you an example. I was working on a TV show which featured an incident that had taken place in a mall. The law was quite complicated and we were trying to explain it. An AP came in with a script which used the phrase 'an indoors public place'. I had to point out that probably no-one in the history of mankind had voluntarily used those words in that order.
It is quite possible to write elegant, structured prose which appears to be informal. And you don't have to be J D Salinger. You just have to use the words and turns of phrase you use in everyday speech. These differ from person to person which is why it is just as artificial to encourage someone who speaks quite formally to use mySpaceisms like 'brb LOL 111!!!!one!one'.
BTW the best artificial strategy I know for fake casual writing is to strike out all words with latin roots.
posted by unSane at 7:23 PM on February 21, 2006
I don't speak like that, and neither do you unless you are some kind of inarticulate dullard.
Try taping a conversation you hear in a bar and then transcribing it -- as is -- with no editing. Sure, people sometimes speak fluidly, but most people -- most of the time -- don't speak writable prose. If they did, good writing would be much easier. You could just speak into a tape recorder and then write down whatever you said. I guess you CAN do that, but I won't pay to read it.
posted by grumblebee at 7:29 PM on February 21, 2006
Try taping a conversation you hear in a bar and then transcribing it -- as is -- with no editing. Sure, people sometimes speak fluidly, but most people -- most of the time -- don't speak writable prose. If they did, good writing would be much easier. You could just speak into a tape recorder and then write down whatever you said. I guess you CAN do that, but I won't pay to read it.
posted by grumblebee at 7:29 PM on February 21, 2006
I read all those a long time ago.
Re-read them. Read them again and again. Study. Immitate.
posted by grumblebee at 7:32 PM on February 21, 2006
"That's basically the difference between Gael's version and yours. His is more active, more personal"
I'm a woman, but thanks!
posted by GaelFC at 7:37 PM on February 21, 2006
I'm a woman, but thanks!
posted by GaelFC at 7:37 PM on February 21, 2006
I'm not trying to get into a pissing match here, Grumblebee, but I've edited literally hundreds of hours of interview tapes of people talking while making documentaries, and discounting umms and ahhs and repetitions, which no-one in their right mind would include while writing, the key to sounding natural in writing is write like you talk.
I write dialogue for a living every day.
posted by unSane at 7:52 PM on February 21, 2006
I write dialogue for a living every day.
posted by unSane at 7:52 PM on February 21, 2006
I try and toss in a bit of colloquialism to loosen myself up. 'Twerent always this way, but as I've gotten older it's harder to shift gears.
posted by unixrat at 8:02 PM on February 21, 2006
posted by unixrat at 8:02 PM on February 21, 2006
WTF is wrong with my writing? Why doesn't it flow like water on a beach? It looks so easy when others do it. But I can't. I keep mixing adjectives and adverbs and stuff. Hemingway knew something I don't. Some say it's because he was the first to use a typewriter. You know, the old ones, which you have to bang on. It makes so much noise, click-clack-clang, ding-ding, that you just to it by spurts. Short sentences. It's easy. You don't run after anything. Specially your own meaning. Or style. You see, you don't even need a verb sometimes. If I could, I'd tell you how to do it. But I can't. I don't know how. Maybe buy a typewriter. An old one, like an Underwood 1935. Might be worth a try.
posted by bru at 8:05 PM on February 21, 2006
posted by bru at 8:05 PM on February 21, 2006
BTW, if you remove all the shit from Grumblebee's post which no-one would ever write in a million years, he ends up disproving his own point.
Grumblebee (edited)
I don't agree. If you write like you speak, you'll get all these ums and uhs and false starts and stuff in there. And you'll be redundant and keep saying the same thing over and over. The goal is not to write like you speak, because people don't have to follow each and every word. You use body language and inflection and there's a lot of redundancy, but when you read, you read all the words. And words are all there are. The goal should be to give the ILLUSION of writing like you speak without actually writing like you speak. Which is hard work.
Write like you speak.
posted by unSane at 9:31 PM on February 21, 2006
Grumblebee (edited)
I don't agree. If you write like you speak, you'll get all these ums and uhs and false starts and stuff in there. And you'll be redundant and keep saying the same thing over and over. The goal is not to write like you speak, because people don't have to follow each and every word. You use body language and inflection and there's a lot of redundancy, but when you read, you read all the words. And words are all there are. The goal should be to give the ILLUSION of writing like you speak without actually writing like you speak. Which is hard work.
Write like you speak.
posted by unSane at 9:31 PM on February 21, 2006
....discounting umms and ahhs and repetitions, which no-one in their right mind would include while writing...
Well, I guess I'm not in my right mind, but I probably knew that already.
The only thing that helped me is a touch-typing class. Once I was typing as fast, pretty much, as I could think, the typing became a way to think, and then began to sound the way it sounded in my head. (My not right-mind head. Whee!)
posted by RJ Reynolds at 9:43 PM on February 21, 2006
Well, I guess I'm not in my right mind, but I probably knew that already.
The only thing that helped me is a touch-typing class. Once I was typing as fast, pretty much, as I could think, the typing became a way to think, and then began to sound the way it sounded in my head. (My not right-mind head. Whee!)
posted by RJ Reynolds at 9:43 PM on February 21, 2006
One of the things you could shoot for is economy of words. A lot of email comes off sounding casual because the people writing it have a lot of email to reply to so they'll want to minimize the amount of typing they have to do. For instance, I'd take Gael's version and cut it down some more so long as the gist gets through:
"I often rewrite e-mail shooting for a spontaneous feel, but somehow it still doesn't flow. How do I write more spontaneously?"
posted by juv3nal at 9:43 PM on February 21, 2006
"I often rewrite e-mail shooting for a spontaneous feel, but somehow it still doesn't flow. How do I write more spontaneously?"
posted by juv3nal at 9:43 PM on February 21, 2006
'an indoors public place'. I had to point out that probably no-one in the history of mankind had voluntarily used those words in that order.
That's not because it's stiff and unwieldy though; it's because it's incorrect. The phrase should be "a public place indoors", which sounds perfectly natural. "Indoors" is an adverb and rightly goes at the end of the sentence.
People speak like this all the time. We don't think ahead, we use the wrong words, and we mess all our ideas up in a jumble -- the exact opposite of the way people speak on American TV shows.
If you want your writing to be more casual you should leave all the mistakes in, never rewrite anything, never punctuate anything and don't worry about spelling.
posted by dydecker at 10:12 PM on February 21, 2006
That's not because it's stiff and unwieldy though; it's because it's incorrect. The phrase should be "a public place indoors", which sounds perfectly natural. "Indoors" is an adverb and rightly goes at the end of the sentence.
People speak like this all the time. We don't think ahead, we use the wrong words, and we mess all our ideas up in a jumble -- the exact opposite of the way people speak on American TV shows.
If you want your writing to be more casual you should leave all the mistakes in, never rewrite anything, never punctuate anything and don't worry about spelling.
posted by dydecker at 10:12 PM on February 21, 2006
Touch typing, yes, that's a great tip!
Touch typing is like removing the barrier between your brain and the computer. Makes a HUUUUUGE difference.
I went from 0-40 wpm in 30 days with Mavis Beacon. 1 hour a day.
posted by unSane at 10:45 PM on February 21, 2006
Touch typing is like removing the barrier between your brain and the computer. Makes a HUUUUUGE difference.
I went from 0-40 wpm in 30 days with Mavis Beacon. 1 hour a day.
posted by unSane at 10:45 PM on February 21, 2006
'public place indoors' is just as horrible as 'indoors public place'
prize goes to someone who can fix it
posted by unSane at 10:47 PM on February 21, 2006
prize goes to someone who can fix it
posted by unSane at 10:47 PM on February 21, 2006
unSane, i don't think anyone cares except for me! so how would you write it?
posted by dydecker at 3:26 AM on February 22, 2006
posted by dydecker at 3:26 AM on February 22, 2006
I'm not trying to get into a pissing match here, Grumblebee
Me neither. We just disagreement. Which is healthy, right? Truth peeks through debate -- as-long-as the debaters don't make it personal.
Regarding your rewrite of my stuttery psuedo-speech (I admit, it was "fake" speech. I'm a public speaker by trade, so I actually speak pretty well. So I faked -- pretty badly -- the jabbering of a less-apt speaker): It was certainly better (and more conversational) than my original, but I still don't think it's very good. It's filled with weak "to be" verbs, repetition, and a couple of points are unclear (because when I was "speaking," I didn't have time to organize my thoughts).
This still isn't perfect (and maybe has tipped too far from conversational), but a start would be the following:
I disagree. If you write like you speak, you'll have to slip a bunch ums, uhs and false starts between words and sentences. And you'll repeat yourself. Repetition helps speech, because conversations are full of distractions (the jukebox in the bar, the sneeze, the cough). But readers read every word. And words are all they read. Speech has two sidekicks: body language and inflection. When you write, shoot for the ILLUSION of "writing like you speak" without actually writing like you speak. It's tough to pull off. You'll have to work at it.
But to achieve this, I had to heavily rewrite. Hopefully, it SOUNDS like speech (or at least informality), but it's not really spontaneous.
Naturally, much "write like you speak" advice depends on how well "you" speak.
posted by grumblebee at 5:56 AM on February 22, 2006
Me neither. We just disagreement. Which is healthy, right? Truth peeks through debate -- as-long-as the debaters don't make it personal.
Regarding your rewrite of my stuttery psuedo-speech (I admit, it was "fake" speech. I'm a public speaker by trade, so I actually speak pretty well. So I faked -- pretty badly -- the jabbering of a less-apt speaker): It was certainly better (and more conversational) than my original, but I still don't think it's very good. It's filled with weak "to be" verbs, repetition, and a couple of points are unclear (because when I was "speaking," I didn't have time to organize my thoughts).
This still isn't perfect (and maybe has tipped too far from conversational), but a start would be the following:
I disagree. If you write like you speak, you'll have to slip a bunch ums, uhs and false starts between words and sentences. And you'll repeat yourself. Repetition helps speech, because conversations are full of distractions (the jukebox in the bar, the sneeze, the cough). But readers read every word. And words are all they read. Speech has two sidekicks: body language and inflection. When you write, shoot for the ILLUSION of "writing like you speak" without actually writing like you speak. It's tough to pull off. You'll have to work at it.
But to achieve this, I had to heavily rewrite. Hopefully, it SOUNDS like speech (or at least informality), but it's not really spontaneous.
Naturally, much "write like you speak" advice depends on how well "you" speak.
posted by grumblebee at 5:56 AM on February 22, 2006
grumblebee, your above paragraph doesn't sound conversational or casual at all. You have too many short, simple sentences like 'I disagree'. Such direct sentences actually increase the formal nature of the writing. Parentheses don't help and your repetition is too deliberate. I'd have to go with unsane and recommend that the asker concentrate less on trying to fake the casual tone and focus on just writing as it comes. Another tip I'd offer the asker would be to set time limits for himself when composing emails so he doesn't waste time self-editing and just says what he has to say.
Informal poll of the office suggests both 'indoors public place' and 'public place indoors' sound awkward but the former much less so than the latter. People seem to like 'indoors public area' though. I think the words 'indoors' and 'place' actually play against one another which is why both phrases seem so jarring.
posted by nixerman at 6:30 AM on February 22, 2006
Informal poll of the office suggests both 'indoors public place' and 'public place indoors' sound awkward but the former much less so than the latter. People seem to like 'indoors public area' though. I think the words 'indoors' and 'place' actually play against one another which is why both phrases seem so jarring.
posted by nixerman at 6:30 AM on February 22, 2006
It seems like it would sound more natural as "indoor public place." It's the cramming together of "indoors public" that makes it awkward.
posted by ludwig_van at 7:09 AM on February 22, 2006
posted by ludwig_van at 7:09 AM on February 22, 2006
grumblebee, your above paragraph doesn't sound conversational or casual at all.
I agree that it's not there yet, and I admitted this in my post (when I said it "tipped too far from conversational"). I don't agree that it doesn't sound conversational "at all," but this is a very subjective call. It depends somewhat on how you converse (I DEFINITELY disagree about the parenthetical phrase. In my circles -- New York, Jewish -- we use such phrases all the time: "Man, it's been a horrible day, today (headache, big fight with my boss, yadda, yadda, yadda)!")
We should remember that the original question strove for INFORMAL writing. While my version might not have sounded like speech, it WAS informal -- though I guess "informal" can be defined however you want to define it. If you define it as "writing that reads EXACTLY the way speech sounds," then naturally you're going to agree with unSane.
Again, my issue with his version is that he's made it "conversational" without using any of the great tools available to writers -- stong word choice, logical ordering of ideas, etc. And the end result is conversational but weak. It's possible to create STRONG, STRIKING-informal prose. It just takes work. This is why I suggested learning from the masters -- Salinger, etc.
Here's another attempt:
You're wrong. If you write like you speak, you'll have to slip a bunch ums, uhs and false starts between words and sentences, and you'll repeat yourself over and over. I don't mind repeating myself when I'm talking, because conversations are full of distractions -- like the sneezes, coughs and jukeboxes in bars. But when I write, I assume readers read every word. And ALL they read are words. They don't get the "sidekicks" that usually tag along with my words when I'm talking -- body language and inflection. When you write, you should shoot for the ILLUSION of "writing like you speak" without ACTUALLY writing like you speak. It's tough to pull off, so you'll have to work at it.
It needs a few more drafts, but it's moving in the right direction.
posted by grumblebee at 9:21 AM on February 22, 2006
I agree that it's not there yet, and I admitted this in my post (when I said it "tipped too far from conversational"). I don't agree that it doesn't sound conversational "at all," but this is a very subjective call. It depends somewhat on how you converse (I DEFINITELY disagree about the parenthetical phrase. In my circles -- New York, Jewish -- we use such phrases all the time: "Man, it's been a horrible day, today (headache, big fight with my boss, yadda, yadda, yadda)!")
We should remember that the original question strove for INFORMAL writing. While my version might not have sounded like speech, it WAS informal -- though I guess "informal" can be defined however you want to define it. If you define it as "writing that reads EXACTLY the way speech sounds," then naturally you're going to agree with unSane.
Again, my issue with his version is that he's made it "conversational" without using any of the great tools available to writers -- stong word choice, logical ordering of ideas, etc. And the end result is conversational but weak. It's possible to create STRONG, STRIKING-informal prose. It just takes work. This is why I suggested learning from the masters -- Salinger, etc.
Here's another attempt:
You're wrong. If you write like you speak, you'll have to slip a bunch ums, uhs and false starts between words and sentences, and you'll repeat yourself over and over. I don't mind repeating myself when I'm talking, because conversations are full of distractions -- like the sneezes, coughs and jukeboxes in bars. But when I write, I assume readers read every word. And ALL they read are words. They don't get the "sidekicks" that usually tag along with my words when I'm talking -- body language and inflection. When you write, you should shoot for the ILLUSION of "writing like you speak" without ACTUALLY writing like you speak. It's tough to pull off, so you'll have to work at it.
It needs a few more drafts, but it's moving in the right direction.
posted by grumblebee at 9:21 AM on February 22, 2006
By the way, if "write like you speak" means "don't don an unnatural, writerly voice when you put pen to paper (or finger to key)", then I agree. In general, you should use your speaking vocabulary when you write (or the vocabulary you WOULD use, if you were better at thinking of the right word at the right time), not some souped up vocabulary with highfalutin' words.
The trouble with transcribing speech is that, when we speak, we (generally) don't have time to compose phrases and sentences that utilize the power tools of writing: active-voice, rich (evocative) word choice, metaphor, etc.
After I write a first draft (which might be a transcription of my speech from a tape -- or some other loose, brainstormy, get-in-on-paper technique), I scan my text several times, looking for specific problems and solving them via rewrites. Here are some of the things I look for:
Passive-voiced sentences and sentences that don't have a clear agent -- someONE who is doing someTHING. That formal voice, which you're wisely trying to avoid, is often signaled by passive language: "Democracy has been foisted on voters." WHO is doing WHAT to WHOM? I literally go through each sentence and ask myself that. There has to be a clear MOTIVATOR and that MOTIVATOR has to be motivating SOMETHING. This is the way humans naturally view the word -- people/objects doing things to people/objects -- so it's the most natural, forceful, evocative way to write.
Verb choice. If you get too fancy -- "he confabulated" -- it won't sound conversational. But within the realm of natural speech, there are many verbs one MIGHT use, and they come in distinct, powerful flavors: he jumped, he ran, she dodged, I gulped...
Appeal to the senses. We have five of them. And it's through them that we experience the world. When I speak, I tend to forget about some of them, but I like to go through my prose and see if there's a way to cram in sensual data: "the argument left a sour taste in my mouth," "the shirt was the color of a grasshopper," "he hissed at me," "I rubbed the sore spot on my nose..."
Metaphors for abstractions. "I was so busy that I hardly noticed her absence, but it gradually wore on me." Can you really FEEL this? Maybe I should add something like this: "I was so busy that I hardly noticed her absence, but it gradually wore on me. I felt grass that had been beaten down by the sun for too long, brittle and brown." You have to be careful here, because if you get too clever (or too "poetic"), it won't sound conversational. But we do use tropes in our everyday speech, and they can really help make abstract writing more accessible.
posted by grumblebee at 9:23 AM on February 22, 2006
The trouble with transcribing speech is that, when we speak, we (generally) don't have time to compose phrases and sentences that utilize the power tools of writing: active-voice, rich (evocative) word choice, metaphor, etc.
After I write a first draft (which might be a transcription of my speech from a tape -- or some other loose, brainstormy, get-in-on-paper technique), I scan my text several times, looking for specific problems and solving them via rewrites. Here are some of the things I look for:
Passive-voiced sentences and sentences that don't have a clear agent -- someONE who is doing someTHING. That formal voice, which you're wisely trying to avoid, is often signaled by passive language: "Democracy has been foisted on voters." WHO is doing WHAT to WHOM? I literally go through each sentence and ask myself that. There has to be a clear MOTIVATOR and that MOTIVATOR has to be motivating SOMETHING. This is the way humans naturally view the word -- people/objects doing things to people/objects -- so it's the most natural, forceful, evocative way to write.
Verb choice. If you get too fancy -- "he confabulated" -- it won't sound conversational. But within the realm of natural speech, there are many verbs one MIGHT use, and they come in distinct, powerful flavors: he jumped, he ran, she dodged, I gulped...
Appeal to the senses. We have five of them. And it's through them that we experience the world. When I speak, I tend to forget about some of them, but I like to go through my prose and see if there's a way to cram in sensual data: "the argument left a sour taste in my mouth," "the shirt was the color of a grasshopper," "he hissed at me," "I rubbed the sore spot on my nose..."
Metaphors for abstractions. "I was so busy that I hardly noticed her absence, but it gradually wore on me." Can you really FEEL this? Maybe I should add something like this: "I was so busy that I hardly noticed her absence, but it gradually wore on me. I felt grass that had been beaten down by the sun for too long, brittle and brown." You have to be careful here, because if you get too clever (or too "poetic"), it won't sound conversational. But we do use tropes in our everyday speech, and they can really help make abstract writing more accessible.
posted by grumblebee at 9:23 AM on February 22, 2006
This thread is closed to new comments.
posted by Evstar at 4:31 PM on February 21, 2006