<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" version="2.0"><channel><title>Scripting News - Latest Comments in How Twitter makes you a better writer (Scripting News)</title><link>http://scripting.disqus.com/</link><description></description><atom:link href="https://scripting.disqus.com/how_twitter_makes_you_a_better_writer_scripting_news/latest.rss" rel="self"></atom:link><language>en</language><lastBuildDate>Mon, 16 Feb 2009 09:06:04 -0000</lastBuildDate><item><title>Re: How Twitter makes you a better writer (Scripting News)</title><link>http://www.scripting.com/stories/2009/01/25/howTwitterMakesYouABetterW.html#comment-6304684</link><description>&lt;p&gt;I figure that writing less forces you to try and mean more. I can see how habitually using shortened "whatever speak" could lead to a poor or apparently lazy standard of writing in general use.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;If you are quite self-analytical then I think you probably realise what you're doing. If you're running a website, then writing shorter copy has to be a good thing - it also means you can make the font size bigger, which I personally think is great. I wrote a bit more about this on my blog after being inspired by this tiny post. :)&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;In fact there are more words in my comment than there are in the original post (that includes the date and the title). I guess I need to turn down the verbosity setting or practice twittering more!&lt;/p&gt;</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">Merchant Blogger</dc:creator><pubDate>Mon, 16 Feb 2009 09:06:04 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: How Twitter makes you a better writer (Scripting News)</title><link>http://www.scripting.com/stories/2009/01/25/howTwitterMakesYouABetterW.html#comment-5794428</link><description>&lt;p&gt;I've been investigating the exact opposite. My hypothesis is Twitter makes our writing much worse. The logic is that Twitter, FriendFeed, Facebook, etc, all move us to conversational styles. Instead of taking the time to write and think superbly, we're all dropping to the lowest common denominator that is basic communication.&lt;/p&gt;</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">Sol Young</dc:creator><pubDate>Mon, 02 Feb 2009 20:18:08 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: How Twitter makes you a better writer (Scripting News)</title><link>http://www.scripting.com/stories/2009/01/25/howTwitterMakesYouABetterW.html#comment-5549665</link><description>&lt;p&gt;Right on.  I find myself editing my tweets obsessively to tighten up and often hit the 140 limit exactly.  I also miss Ficlets for this same reason - they had a 1024 character limit on stories, so it was a good exercise to try to tell a complete story (or at least a complete segment) in one post.  Creative constraints are great to have around&lt;/p&gt;</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">Les Orchard</dc:creator><pubDate>Mon, 26 Jan 2009 10:30:51 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: How Twitter makes you a better writer (Scripting News)</title><link>http://www.scripting.com/stories/2009/01/25/howTwitterMakesYouABetterW.html#comment-5536338</link><description>&lt;p&gt;Twitter makes you laconic.&lt;/p&gt;</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">Barce</dc:creator><pubDate>Sun, 25 Jan 2009 16:27:11 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: How Twitter makes you a better writer (Scripting News)</title><link>http://www.scripting.com/stories/2009/01/25/howTwitterMakesYouABetterW.html#comment-5535666</link><description>&lt;p&gt;@Dave and @Richard Carter: yes, important to make the distinction between good writer and good writing. Being able to write concisely makes one a better writer; concise writing isn't necessarily better than more extravagant writing (let's not tar it with the lame epithet 'flowery'). I know people who prefer Hemingway over Dickens, but I would question their judgement if they thought he was a better writer because he used fewer words.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;@Michael Becker, of course if Hamlet had been written in 100 words (or less) it probably wouldn't have had lasting appeal...&lt;/p&gt;</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">Guy Parkinson</dc:creator><pubDate>Sun, 25 Jan 2009 15:42:14 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: How Twitter makes you a better writer (Scripting News)</title><link>http://www.scripting.com/stories/2009/01/25/howTwitterMakesYouABetterW.html#comment-5534183</link><description>&lt;p&gt;Combine that with a dose of journalism training and suddenly you're writing Hamlet in 100 words (or less).&lt;/p&gt;</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">Michael Becker</dc:creator><pubDate>Sun, 25 Jan 2009 13:45:37 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: How Twitter makes you a better writer (Scripting News)</title><link>http://www.scripting.com/stories/2009/01/25/howTwitterMakesYouABetterW.html#comment-5534074</link><description>&lt;p&gt;Back in the olden days there was a thing called a Telex. It was basically a telegraph message that went directly to the recipient. Companies published booklets of abbreviation for use in Telexes; not unlike the unofficial abbreviations in today's text messages. Each character cost money, so economy of words was important. Is Twitter the new Telex?&lt;/p&gt;</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">Tom Brandt</dc:creator><pubDate>Sun, 25 Jan 2009 13:34:51 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: How Twitter makes you a better writer (Scripting News)</title><link>http://www.scripting.com/stories/2009/01/25/howTwitterMakesYouABetterW.html#comment-5532637</link><description>&lt;p&gt;Reading and writing poetry helps as well.&lt;/p&gt;</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">jeber</dc:creator><pubDate>Sun, 25 Jan 2009 13:16:33 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: How Twitter makes you a better writer (Scripting News)</title><link>http://www.scripting.com/stories/2009/01/25/howTwitterMakesYouABetterW.html#comment-5532619</link><description>&lt;p&gt;"Will, Duck!"&lt;br&gt;&lt;/p&gt;</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">Speed</dc:creator><pubDate>Sun, 25 Jan 2009 13:14:48 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: How Twitter makes you a better writer (Scripting News)</title><link>http://www.scripting.com/stories/2009/01/25/howTwitterMakesYouABetterW.html#comment-5532465</link><description>&lt;p&gt;I wasn't trying to catch you, Dave; I was just disagreeing.&lt;/p&gt;</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">Richard Carter</dc:creator><pubDate>Sun, 25 Jan 2009 13:01:33 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: How Twitter makes you a better writer (Scripting News)</title><link>http://www.scripting.com/stories/2009/01/25/howTwitterMakesYouABetterW.html#comment-5532420</link><description>&lt;p&gt;twttr mks u a mch wrse wrtr whn u hve to wrt like this to fit in 140 chrs.&lt;/p&gt;</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">Andrew</dc:creator><pubDate>Sun, 25 Jan 2009 12:57:39 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: How Twitter makes you a better writer (Scripting News)</title><link>http://www.scripting.com/stories/2009/01/25/howTwitterMakesYouABetterW.html#comment-5532272</link><description>&lt;p&gt;How tight can we make the above Dave's post?&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;"Twitter forces crisp, direct, easy to read copy. Dan Santow at Edelman PR has a list of single words that replace a phrase. Twitter prevents flowery prose.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;Thanks Steve."&lt;br&gt;&lt;/p&gt;</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">Speed</dc:creator><pubDate>Sun, 25 Jan 2009 12:43:58 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: How Twitter makes you a better writer (Scripting News)</title><link>http://www.scripting.com/stories/2009/01/25/howTwitterMakesYouABetterW.html#comment-5532496</link><description>&lt;p&gt;That's pretty good, but...&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;It sounds like the robot in Lost In Space.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;Danger Will Robinson.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;Danger Will Robinson.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;Danger Will Robinson.&lt;/p&gt;</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">dave</dc:creator><pubDate>Sun, 25 Jan 2009 12:04:13 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: How Twitter makes you a better writer (Scripting News)</title><link>http://www.scripting.com/stories/2009/01/25/howTwitterMakesYouABetterW.html#comment-5531848</link><description>&lt;p&gt;No way, Dave. Twitter might force you to write concisely, but that's only one aspect of good writing. If Tweeting is good writing, then so is my shopping list.&lt;/p&gt;</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">Richard Carter</dc:creator><pubDate>Sun, 25 Jan 2009 12:03:52 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: How Twitter makes you a better writer (Scripting News)</title><link>http://www.scripting.com/stories/2009/01/25/howTwitterMakesYouABetterW.html#comment-5531657</link><description>&lt;p&gt;Well put, Dave :)&lt;br&gt;When I taught journalism at UNLV, I made students use Twitter to practice writing concise news leads; it was grand fun!&lt;br&gt;Twitter (and texting) also enforces/explains the active voice ...&lt;/p&gt;</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">Charlotte-Anne Lucas</dc:creator><pubDate>Sun, 25 Jan 2009 11:44:11 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: How Twitter makes you a better writer (Scripting News)</title><link>http://www.scripting.com/stories/2009/01/25/howTwitterMakesYouABetterW.html#comment-5531906</link><description>&lt;p&gt;Thank you but you haven't caught me Richard because I never said, or implied&lt;br&gt;nor do I believe that Twitter is the *only* way to become a better writer, I&lt;br&gt;just think it can make you a better writer. And that's what my piece says.&lt;/p&gt;</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">dave</dc:creator><pubDate>Sun, 25 Jan 2009 11:10:12 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: How Twitter makes you a better writer (Scripting News)</title><link>http://www.scripting.com/stories/2009/01/25/howTwitterMakesYouABetterW.html#comment-5531141</link><description>&lt;p&gt;I agree :-) Had just noticed this myself; also, it's a fun and creative exercise to do that compression. Also, nice example with the strikeout.&lt;/p&gt;</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">Vasudev Ram</dc:creator><pubDate>Sun, 25 Jan 2009 10:48:54 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: How Twitter makes you a better writer (Scripting News)</title><link>http://www.scripting.com/stories/2009/01/25/howTwitterMakesYouABetterW.html#comment-5531085</link><description>&lt;p&gt;Dave,   This is tres smart.  I find it a great test of brains.  Try to get the thought across with the least words.&lt;/p&gt;</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">Boiarski</dc:creator><pubDate>Sun, 25 Jan 2009 10:38:03 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: How Twitter makes you a better writer (Scripting News)</title><link>http://www.scripting.com/stories/2009/01/25/howTwitterMakesYouABetterW.html#comment-5530731</link><description>&lt;p&gt;You should change your Twitter background image. King Kong is always obscured so it carries no meaning.&lt;/p&gt;</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">anon</dc:creator><pubDate>Sun, 25 Jan 2009 09:52:42 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: How Twitter makes you a better writer (Scripting News)</title><link>http://www.scripting.com/stories/2009/01/25/howTwitterMakesYouABetterW.html#comment-5530687</link><description>&lt;p&gt;Print journalism in space-constrained media and headline writing promotes a similar awareness: how do I get the essential message across in the least space? The trick is to not go too far in shorthand abbreviations and symbols, as some confused TwitterBuds and FaceBook Friendlies like to remind me.&lt;/p&gt;</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">raines</dc:creator><pubDate>Sun, 25 Jan 2009 09:49:23 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: How Twitter makes you a better writer (Scripting News)</title><link>http://www.scripting.com/stories/2009/01/25/howTwitterMakesYouABetterW.html#comment-5530685</link><description>&lt;p&gt;Minimalist Twitter-style post.:)&lt;/p&gt;</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">Scabr</dc:creator><pubDate>Sun, 25 Jan 2009 09:48:40 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: How Twitter makes you a better writer (Scripting News)</title><link>http://www.scripting.com/stories/2009/01/25/howTwitterMakesYouABetterW.html#comment-5530693</link><description>&lt;p&gt;Twitter is a great tool to teach screenwriting techniques, where you want short, snappy sentences and paragraphs providing maximum information. Prose, on the other hand, can appear cold and bare if you use that technique.  For me screenwriting is like writing haikus and prose a Shakespearean sonnet.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;Just some thoughts on a late, steamy night.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;Cheers,&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;skribe&lt;/p&gt;</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">skribe</dc:creator><pubDate>Sun, 25 Jan 2009 09:47:19 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: How Twitter makes you a better writer (Scripting News)</title><link>http://www.scripting.com/stories/2009/01/25/howTwitterMakesYouABetterW.html#comment-5530669</link><description>&lt;p&gt;You´re right, you only have 140 characters and you have to concentrate and focus in twitter.&lt;/p&gt;</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">etorsten</dc:creator><pubDate>Sun, 25 Jan 2009 09:43:11 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: How Twitter makes you a better writer (Scripting News)</title><link>http://www.scripting.com/stories/2009/01/25/howTwitterMakesYouABetterW.html#comment-5530754</link><description>&lt;p&gt;Thanks for the advice, but I like it just the way it is.&lt;/p&gt;</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">dave</dc:creator><pubDate>Sun, 25 Jan 2009 08:58:10 -0000</pubDate></item></channel></rss>