Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Quote of the Day: Orwell’s Rules of Writing
George Orwell’s rules of writing:
- Never use a metaphor, simile or other figure of speech which you are used to seeing in print.
- Never use a long word where a short one will do.
- If it is possible to cut a word out, always cut it out.
- Never use the passive where you can use the active.
- Never use a foreign phrase, a scientific word or a jargon word if you can think of an everyday English equivalent.
- Break any of these rules sooner than say anything barbarous.
Eric Blair (George Orwell) was one of the most accomplished wordsmiths of the 20th century. These were his guides to writing effectively.I like them, and try to follow them.
Published in Literature
I also like Twain’s advice on substituting a word for ‘very’ that will not make it past the editors and thus will be deleted.
I have a copy of Orwell’s rules for writing taped up over my desk.
(Which is dumb. I already know them. I should really tape it up over all my coworkers’ desks.)
This conversation is an entry in our Quote of the Day Series. We have only one opening left on the April Schedule. If this reminds you of a quotation that is important to you, why not sign up today?
I shall endeavor to utilize Mr. Blair’s rules as often as possible, especially that bit about not using words too recherche for the task at hand. Instead of succumbing to sesquipedalianism, I’ll keep my wording as simple as ABC.
Orwell’s rule #6 has always struck me as the most inane writing advice ever put to print. It is so general that it is meaningless. It sounds like something a sophomore in college might say
By the way, I’m a fan of Orwell.
Kent
Sort of. I think it’s another way of saying “These rules may be broken, but only with good reason and purpose.”
My aunt used to say to add “in bed” at the end of your fortune cookie fortune. The cookie’s fortune I got last night was ” You will be rewarded handsomely for taking the road less traveled.”
Well? Were you . . . y’know, . . . “rewarded handsomely”?
I don’t tell, but it is a fun thing to do.
There ought to be something in there about using very few adjectives. I have a bugaboo about adjectives that don’t add any meaning, which is something that police officers seem fond of doing – “we are searching for this particular suspect.”
I prefer El Colonel’s rules for writing:
Shouldn’t your No. 4 be “Use of the passive voice should be avoided.”?
I like that!
Passive voice is so pretentious. Am I pretentious using pretentious? Will someone get me out of here??
Susan, you dug your own hole. Wait, maybe it should be, “The hole was dug by you.”
Whatever it is, you’ll have to dig yourself out of it.
Kent
Or, as Orwell would say, you are a snob.
I’d like to modify #5 a bit: never use a foreign word or phrase without also including the translation. It infuriates me when an author uses a French phrase, and then goes on blithely as if everyone reads French.
But it always gives one’s writing that certain je ne sais quoi.
Eschew grandiloquence?
Oh, okay.
Strunk and White, The Elements of Style.
Perfectly fine for literature. But when writing technical or legal documents you should rarely sacrifice precision for readability.
If the long word, foreign phrase, or scientific word is at all more precise than the short or everyday word, use the former.
A side benefit of using the long word, foreign phrase, or scientific word is that it is more likely to be properly translated (or not translated at all). Translation often introduces error. A simple word may receive a casual subtle mistranslation, whereas the long word, foreign phrase, or scientific word may induce greater care in the translator.
Note, I have not yet addressed “jargon”. I regard jargon as something likely to be regarded as very precise to a certain audience, but likely to be misunderstood by another. Thus, jargon should be used but explained to gain the benefits of precision for both audiences.
These “rules” are well and good. However, dialogue is different. People speak using metaphors, long words, foreign phrases, jargon, and so forth.
And never say “never”. Passive voice should be avoided, but it can used if the situation calls for it (which isn’t often). In addition, evil characters often say things barbarous, but that falls under dialogue.
One rule I’ve come to follow recently involves the overuse or misuse of the word “that”. More often than not, it’s either superfluous, or better if replaced with “who” or “which”. One author I’m currently reading uses “that” way too often. I even read one sentence which contained the word “that” three times. It was a painful experience.
I have Elmore Leonard’s 10 Rules of Writing. It has several rules which I gleefully break, but Rule #10 stands out:
“Try to leave out the part that readers tend to skip.”
I try to eliminate scenes and dialogue that add nothing to the story. (Couldn’t avoid using “that” here!)
You have got to love Dorothy Parker. Also I read Homage to Catalonia last year and have other G Orwell on my (never goin’ to happen because I will die first) reading list. It helped to explain the ‘attraction’ of communism/socialism.
Good if you’re writing the next great novel, but for everyday communication a familiar trope may be most appropriate. Attempting to come up with new figures of speech all the time can make one seem solipsistic.
Similar issues attend run-on sentences. In dialogue, people may speak in slight run-on sentences (e.g., perhaps up to 25 words). They do not speak in 100-word run on sentences.
Even aside from dialogue, a moderate multi-clause sentence of 25 words or so can be quite readable in literature. But most people are not creating literature and they abuse long sentences. Often, it you diagram a long sentence, it literally means the opposite of what the writer intended. Or it is indescipherable.
Unless you are Andrew Klavan or Ann Coulter, stick with subject, verb, object!
Orwell is not instructing people “to come up with new figures of speech all the time”. For “everyday communication” you do not need familiar tropes or new figures of speech.
The only rule of good writing is: Know what you are doing.
Concision or eloquence, long or short, active or passive, 1st-person or 3rd-person, traditionally punctuated or avant-garde, etc — These are stylistic preferences with large reader markets in either direction. The important thing is for every element to be deliberate, at least in the hindsight of editing.
Heaven forbid that all writers try to be Hemingway.
Yup. One thing that turns me off about some recent television shows is the need to have every bit of dialogue be something witty, snarky, or just inflated diction. It can sound very forced.
Only if you write only for yourself, like a vintner who makes wine only for his own consumption. If he gets drunk, is anyone aware of it but him?
Nicely said, or as publishers say, form follows function.
The most important guide for clear writing is to formulate a purpose and stick to it.