Joseph Tsarr is one of my favorite youtube channels. He’s the only content producer that I’ve found that leans into a craft I’m obssessed with. Word elegance.
He has a complete channel on how to use words in an athletic way. How to provide texture, richness, and decoration into speech. All while prioritizing clarity, simplicity, and not overthinking about the words.
It’s a beautiful dance and this video proves a group starting point in how to get out of your own way.
My Notes:
The Thing That Makes You a Good Writer Is the Same Thing Ruining Your Speaking
“Good writers understand that speech itself is a form of athleticism. Like any other sport or athletic practice, you have to define when is practice and when is performance.”
Writing trains an internal editor. Years of revising prose, hunting for the right word, engineering the sentence — all of it builds a voice in the skull that is constantly asking: is this good enough? That voice is an asset on the page. It has unlimited time to work. But put that same voice in a conversation and it becomes a gag. What it produces in writing is clarity. What it produces in speech is paralysis.
The problem isn’t the editor. The editor has correct values: precision, word economy, tightness. The problem is that the editor was trained in a medium with no clock, and now it’s running the same process in real time, in front of another person, under conditions where the gap between a thought and its expression is measured in seconds, not days.
Writers call this not knowing what to say. What it actually is, is knowing too much about how it should be said.
Flow Is Not a Personality Trait — It’s a Skill You Practiced Into Existence
“The greatest communicators have fundamentally a very playful, casual, and creative relationship with speaking — they’re not mentally engaged as much as they are with writing. They’re in flow.”
Most writers assume that flow — the state where ideas arrive already assembled — is something that happens to certain people under certain conditions. Sherwood’s position is that flow is a skill, and like all skills, it can be trained. The question is whether you’re practicing it deliberately or waiting for it to arrive.
The mental posture of great speaking is closer to jazz than to essay writing. You’re not composing. You’re performing something you’ve already internalized, and trusting that the right phrase will surface if you stop trying to summon it. The trying is the interference. The editor that works so well on the page becomes, in speech, the hand closing around the fish.
This is not mysticism. This is what anyone who has ever watched a master communicator actually describes when pressed: not that they knew what to say, but that they stopped blocking what wanted to come out.
Your Greatest Speeches Were Three Minutes Long — You Just Never Had to Find Them
“Most of good writing comes down to a 20-minute creative epiphany — sometimes it’s 2 minutes, sometimes 20 seconds. Can we compress that and have access to it at any time we want while speaking? The answer is yes.”
Writers mythologize the three-hour session. The candles, the silence, the grinding. What actually produced the thing they’re proud of was about twenty minutes of real connection, and the rest was furniture arrangement. They know this but keep scheduling four-hour blocks anyway.
The same compression is available in speech. The same quality of connection that happens in the best twenty minutes of a writing session can happen in the middle of a conversation — not because you prepared perfectly, but because you allowed it. The window is smaller in speech. It might be ninety seconds. But the ceiling on what’s possible inside that window is not lower than what’s possible on the page.
The gap between good writing and poor speaking is not usually a gap in intelligence or raw material. It’s a gap in the ability to access the material under different conditions.
Focus Is the Variable — Not Confidence, Not Charisma
“Most of good speaking comes down to focus. It comes down to being very cognitively secure. And this has nothing to do with confidence or personality. It is everything to do with not allowing yourself to be distracted by external variables.”
The confidence framing is popular because it’s actionable in a way that feels good — you can take a class, do an exercise, slowly build toward some imagined state of self-assurance. The focus framing is less comfortable because it removes the excuse. It says: the variable is not how you feel about yourself, it is whether you can hold your attention on the idea you’re trying to express while someone is looking at you.
Writers are often highly sensitive people — attuned to tone, to implication, to the subtle shift in how someone is receiving them. That sensitivity is what makes the writing good. In a conversation, it’s what breaks the focus. The same signal processing that catches the perfect word also catches the slight furrowing of a brow, the micro-expression of boredom, the sound of a chair scraping across a floor. And if the focus moves to that, it never gets back to the idea.
Cognitive security is not caring less. It is directing your care more precisely.
You Have More Time Than You Think, and You Can Take It
“You can ask for more time when you speak. You can pause while speaking if you need to collect your thought. You have time within your control.”
One of the less-examined anxieties in speaking is the sense that silence is failure. That the moment you stop, you’ve lost the thread, lost the room, lost the point. This creates the rushing that produces the muddy thinking, which produces the sense that you’re not as clear in speech as you are in writing — which reinforces the anxiety.
The reality is that a deliberate pause reads as gravitas, not as confusion. It signals that what comes next was worth waiting for. The people who seem most comfortable in conversation are often the ones who have made peace with the quiet. They’ve stopped treating the gap between thoughts as something to be filled and started treating it as part of the rhythm.
Sherwood makes it sound obvious, because it is — once you know you can do it. You can ask for time. You can say you want to think for a moment. You can sit in twenty seconds of silence and come back with a better sentence than the one you would have rushed out. Writers do this in their heads every day. The same move is available when talking.
Mistakes in Speech Are Not Mistakes — They’re the Medium
“Your mistakes become part of the charismatic quality of your communication. Your ability to work those in is part of what makes you a good communicator. It’s not ignoring the mistakes — it’s letting that blank spot on the canvas be part of the art.”
Written prose, edited and revised, creates the illusion of someone who thinks perfectly. No false starts, no aborted metaphors, no words that arrived wrong and had to be corrected. The reader knows intellectually that this was revised, but they experience it as fluency. They hold the speaker to the same standard, which is irrational but persistent.
The writers who become good speakers are the ones who stop trying to produce edited speech and start producing honest speech with visible revision. Not because the mistakes make them more relatable, though they do, but because the willingness to catch and correct in real time demonstrates something writing rarely can: that the thinker is actually thinking, live, in front of you. The seam is visible. And a visible seam in something well-made is not a flaw. It’s the proof of craft.
The Editor in Your Head Is a Ghost — You Have to Learn Not to Let It Haunt You
“I’ve come to call Hemingway’s curse — the condition of a speaker who has overdeveloped in their brain the editor. It’s the spirit or ghost of Hemingway haunting us, always asking: is this good enough? Is there a better word?”
The editor was the thing that made the writing worth reading. It learned from every revision session, every sentence you tore apart and rebuilt, every time you stayed in the document until the clause was exact. And it did its job. The writing got good.
But it has no off switch. It runs in the background of every conversation, comparing what just came out of your mouth against some ideal version that exists nowhere except in its own projection. And unlike on the page, you can’t go back. The sentence is already out. And now the editor is rating it, and the rating is poor, and you’re already behind on the next sentence because part of your mind is still in the last one.
This is Hemingway’s curse. The cure is not killing the editor — it’s learning to quarantine it. Practice and performance are different modes. The editor belongs in practice. In performance, you leave it at the door and trust that the years of practice have already loaded what you need. The material is already in there. The only question is whether you’ll let yourself access it.
Bottom Line
The gap between how well you write and how well you speak is not a talent gap. It is a training gap. You have spent years building one skill and almost no time building the other. The editor in your head, your sensitivity to your environment, your perfectionism about output — these are not character flaws that need correcting. They are traits that need redirecting. The same discipline that made the writing good can make the speaking good. It just requires a different practice, and the honest recognition that flow in speaking is as trainable as anything else you’ve already trained yourself to do.
Leave a comment