(单词翻译:单击)
Culture
文艺版块
Johnson
约翰逊专栏
How to write well
如何练就好文笔
A new book lays out the data for sharp, simple writing.
一本新书用数据证明了简练明晰的写作风格的好处。
Do you edit text messages carefully before sending them?
在发送短信之前，你会仔细编辑吗？
If so, you may be the kind of person who takes pride in crafting even the simplest message.
如果会，那么你可能是那种发最简单的信息也要字斟句酌并以此为荣的人。
If you do not, you may see yourself as a go-getter for whom verve and speed outrank care: get it done decently now rather than perfectly later.
如果不会，那么你可能是有实干精神的人，对你来说，干劲和速度比谨慎更重要：宁愿立刻把事情做到九十分，不要慢吞吞地把事情做到一百分。
A new book makes the argument for being the careful kind of writer, even in informal, throwaway messages.
一本新书论证并提倡下笔谨慎的写作风格，即使是写非正式的、只读一遍的信息。
Todd Rogers and Jessica Lasky-Fink are behavioural scientists, both at Harvard.
托德·罗杰斯和杰西卡·拉斯基-芬克都是哈佛大学的行为科学家。
Their “Writing For Busy Readers” is cleverly titled: all readers are busy nowadays.
他们的《为忙碌的读者写作》一书的标题就很巧妙：如今所有的读者都很忙碌。
People are bombarded constantly with messages, from the mailbox to the inbox to the text-message alert.
人们不断地被信息轰炸，从家里的收件箱和电子邮箱再到短信提示。
(They can also be distracted by TikTok or “Candy Crush” at any moment.)
(他们也可能随时被TikTok或糖果消消乐分散注意力。)
What to read, what to skim and what to ignore are decisions that nearly everyone has to make dozens, or even hundreds, of times a day.
读什么、略读什么、忽略什么，几乎每个人每天都要做出几十次甚至数百次这些决定。
The authors present well-established principles that have long been prized in guides to writing including The Economist’s style book (which Johnson helped update): cut unnecessary words, choose those that remain from the bedrock vocabulary everyone knows and keep syntax simple.
两位作者提出了一些经典原则，这些原则一直受到各种写作指南的推崇，其中包括《经济学人》风格指南(本文作者也做一些更新工作)：删掉不必要的单词，选择所有人都认识且沿用的基本词汇，保持句法简单。
But “Writing for Busy People” brings evidence.
但《为忙碌的读者写作》还提供了支持这些原则的证据。
Take “less is more”.
以“少即是多”为例。
Most books on writing well preach the advice to omit needless words.
大多数写作书都建议人们省略不必要的词。
The authors, however, have tested the notion.
然而，两位作者还对这一理念进行了测试。
For example, in an email to thousands of school-board members asking them to take a survey, cutting the length from 127 to 49 words almost doubled the response rate (from a paltry 2.7% to 4.8%).
例如，给数千名学校董事会成员写电子邮件并邀请他们参加一项问卷调查，当电子邮件的长度从127个字缩短到49个字时，回复率几乎翻了一番(从微不足道的2.7%增加到4.8%)。
The researchers found that a longer message makes recipients think the task (such as filling out a survey) will take longer, too.
研究人员发现，消息的篇幅越长，收件人就会以为完成消息提出的任务(如填写调查问卷)会花费更长时间。
The same applies to text messages.
同样的道理也适用于短信。
In another experiment, a pandemic-era message to parents first included a few sentences acknowledging the difficulties of home-schooling, then asked them to take a survey.
在另一项实验中，疫情期间给家长发送了一条短信，开头几句话对在家辅导孩子学习的不易之处表示理解，然后邀请家长参加一项问卷调查。
A shorter message inviting them to take the survey got more responses.
结果是短信越短，家长进行调查的回复率就越高。
Writers must sometimes opt for being brusque but effective instead of sympathetic but ignored.
写作者有时必须简短有效，哪怕失之无礼也好过委婉体贴，但被人忽视。
Often it is not just what you say but how briskly you say it.
通常，重要的不仅仅是你说了什么，而且是你说得有多快。
The value of brevity applies even when asking people to donate money, such as to political candidates.
简洁的价值甚至适用于请求人们捐款的场合，比如向政治候选人捐款。
It is plausible that potential donors would be more likely to open their wallets if they could understand as many reasons as possible to do so.
如果潜在捐赠者能够理解尽可能多的理由，那么他们更有可能打开钱包，这似乎是有道理的。
But in an experiment for an American candidate, simply deleting every other paragraph in a fundraising email increased donations by 16% (though it resulted in a disjointed message).
但在对一位美国候选人进行的实验中，只需每隔一段就删除一段筹款电子邮件中的内容，捐款就会增加16%(尽管这会导致信息不连贯)。
Even political obsessives do not want to read endless self-justification.
即使是痴迷于政治的人也不想读到无休无止的自我辩护。
Word-count is not the only thing to cut.
需要删减的不只是字数。
Keeping messages to a single idea—or as few as absolutely needed—helps ensure that they will be read, remembered and acted on.
将信息内容限制在一个中心思想--或尽可能少的几个思想--有助于确保人们会阅读并记住这些思想，并采取行动。
Reducing the number of possible actions has the same effect, too: a link in an email (from, appropriately enough, Behavioral Scientist magazine) attracted 50% more clicks when it was solo than when it was sent alongside a second, “bonus” link.
减少可能的动作也有同样的效果：电子邮件中只有一个链接(恰当地引用《行为科学家》杂志)比同时还有一个“附带”链接时，点击量要多50%。
Syntax and word-choice matter, too.
句法和选词也很重要。
Short and active sentences, with common words that everyone uses, are best.
短小生动的句子，加上所有人都使用的常用词，这就是最好的搭配。
From Facebook posts to online-travel reviews, even brief, informal pieces of writing that follow these rules get more likes, shares and so on.
从Facebook帖子到网上的旅游评论，遵循这些规则的简短、非正式的文字也会获得更多的赞和转发等等。
Serious writers should also take note.
严肃写作者也应该注意。
A study of the ethics codes of 188 public companies found that those using long sentences and complicated words were seen as less moral and trustworthy.
一项对188家上市公司的道德准则的研究发现，那些使用长句和复杂词语的公司被认为不那么道德和值得信赖。
The authors’ other points are less about writing than about design and informational packaging.
两位作者的其他观点与其说是关于写作，不如说是关于设计和信息包装。
Organisation matters: a redesigned summons issued by New York City police (for small offences on the street) reduced court no-shows by 13%.
组织方式很重要：纽约市警方重新设计了传票(针对街头轻微违法行为)，就将缺席法庭的人数减少了13%。
Bullet points, headings and formatting for emphasis are good—when used judiciously.
分条标注的圆点、小标题和表强调的格式都很好，只要使用得当。
But mixing up different forms of emphasis like highlighting, bolding and italics are the “equivalent of a peanut butter, ham and Gorgonzola sandwich on banana bread: a combination of ingredients that add up to an unpleasant, off-putting whole”.
但是，将文本高亮、粗体和斜体等不同的强调形式混在一起，就相当于用香蕉面包加花生酱、火腿和戈贡佐拉奶酪三明治：各种配料混在一起构成了一个令人讨厌的大杂烩。
If everyone is a busy reader, everyone is a busy writer, too.
如果每个人都是忙碌的读者，那么每个人也都是忙碌的写作者。
That may make it tempting to fire off as many messages as quickly as possible and hope for the best.
这可能会让人忍不住想尽可能快地发送更多消息，然后希望一切顺利。
But from essays to text messages organising dinner plans, devoting time to the needs of readers has provable benefits.
但无论是写文章，还是写短信安排晚餐，花时间去满足读者的需求有可被证明的好处。
If you are so busy that you write an undisciplined message that readers scan, ignore and delete, then you might as well have not written it at all.
如果你因为太忙，而写了一封杂乱无章的邮件，读者匆匆浏览后就将其遗忘并删除，那么你还不如从一开始就不要写这封邮件。
