In his Politics and the English Language (1946), George Orwell's listed several rules for authors, equally valid for fiction, non-fiction, journalism or even commercial and technical writing. The Decalogue I’ve listed should be memorized until it becomes second nature: it will save writers much work, hardship and heartbreak on rewrite, or in the editorial stage.
1. Never use a metaphor, simile, or other figure of speech that you are used to seeing in print.
2. Don’t use long sentences with little punctuation.
3. Never use a long word where a short one will do.
4. Write what you know.
5. If it is possible to cut a word out, always cut it out.
6. Do not overuse exclamation marks, emphasis, or italics.
7. Never use the passive where you can use the active.
8. Never use very long paragraphs
9. Never use a foreign phrase, a scientific word or a jargon word if you can think of an everyday English equivalent.
10. Do not change between the first and the third person for no good reason.
George Orwell caps his sage recommendations with this beauty: “Break any of these rules sooner than say anything outright barbarous.” Amen.
Login/Register to leave a comment, or Login using or
Post Comments
William Haltom Saturday, 14 Jul 2012 05:24 PM via Facebook
While I have problems with each of Orwell's six rules in "Politics and the English Language," the one I'd disregard most readily would be "If it is possible to cut a word out, always cut it out." First, Orwell violates his own rule in stating it, so how great a rule can it be? It is possible to eliminate each "out" in Orwell's "rule." Second, my major concern is clarity. If cutting word(s) makes for more clarity without sacrifcing precision or accuracy, cut!
However, "Never use the passive where you can use the active" would be a close second for me. I do not even understand Orwell's phrasing. How many English verbs have a passive without an active? If you could use the passive voice, wouldn't it follow that the active voice was an option? Orwell could obey his own rule by cutting out "where you can use the active," no?
My favorite of your formulations is "Do not change between the first and the third person for no good reason." Would that Orwell had used "for no good reason" or other qualifications to make his rules plausible or meaningful! Use the passive voice for good reasons but not for no good reasons. Cut words out if you have a good reason for doing so, but leave unnecessary words in if you have a good reason for doing so.
In his Politics and the English Language (1946), George Orwell's listed several rules for authors, equally valid for fiction, non-fiction, journalism or even commercial and technical writing. The Decalogue I’ve listed should be memorized until it becomes second nature: it will save writers much work, hardship and heartbreak on rewrite, or in the editorial stage.
1. Never use a metaphor, simile, or other figure of speech that you are used to seeing in print.
2. Don’t use long sentences with little punctuation.
3. Never use a long word where a short one will do.
4. Write what you know.
5. If it is possible to cut a word out, always cut it out.
6. Do not overuse exclamation marks, emphasis, or italics.
7. Never use the passive where you can use the active.
8. Never use very long paragraphs
9. Never use a foreign phrase, a scientific word or a jargon word if you can think of an everyday English equivalent.
10. Do not change between the first and the third person for no good reason.
George Orwell caps his sage recommendations with this beauty: “Break any of these rules sooner than say anything outright barbarous.” Amen.
Which would you break, and why?
Saturday, 14 Jul 2012 05:24 PM via Facebook
While I have problems with each of Orwell's six rules in "Politics and the English Language," the one I'd disregard most readily would be "If it is possible to cut a word out, always cut it out." First, Orwell violates his own rule in stating it, so how great a rule can it be? It is possible to eliminate each "out" in Orwell's "rule." Second, my major concern is clarity. If cutting word(s) makes for more clarity without sacrifcing precision or accuracy, cut!
However, "Never use the passive where you can use the active" would be a close second for me. I do not even understand Orwell's phrasing. How many English verbs have a passive without an active? If you could use the passive voice, wouldn't it follow that the active voice was an option? Orwell could obey his own rule by cutting out "where you can use the active," no?
My favorite of your formulations is "Do not change between the first and the third person for no good reason." Would that Orwell had used "for no good reason" or other qualifications to make his rules plausible or meaningful! Use the passive voice for good reasons but not for no good reasons. Cut words out if you have a good reason for doing so, but leave unnecessary words in if you have a good reason for doing so.
Post Comment (Required)
Abuse Report (Required)