4 ms·
Clarence's decision and the decision of many other politicians is likely the product of Orwell's writing. After reading Orwell's "Collection of Essays" I've be
by s_baby 14y ago
Clarence's decision and the decision of many other politicians is likely the product of Orwell's writing.
After reading Orwell's "Collection of Essays" I've been doing the same. In his essay, "Politics and the English Language." Orwell boils down good writing to:
1. “Never use a metaphor, simile or other figure of speech which you are used to seeing in print.”
2. “Never use a long word where a short one will do.”
3. “If it is possible to cut a word out, always cut it out.”
4. “Never use the passive where you can use the active.”
5. “Never use a foreign phrase, a scientific word or a jargon word if you can think of an everyday English equivalent.”
6. “Break any of these rules sooner than say anything outright barbarous.” (170)
edit: removed words
http://law.marquette.edu/facultyblog/2011/08/31/george-orwell-on-writing-well/ http://law.marquette.edu/facultyblog/2011/08/31/george-orwel...
- tikhonj 14y agoFor #3, I can't help but think: "If it is possible to cut a word out, cut it out." :). It's probably a subtle joke on Orwell's part.
- igravious 14y agoI love that Orwell collection. An entire collection of Martin Amis essays and book reviews is called 'The War Against Cliché'[1] (your #1 above) because he too prioritizes resisting the all-too-easy tendency to rely on tired worn-out phrases. I have noticed that tabloid papers lean on this style of language more than traditional broadsheets - for me it is this (deliberate) literary lazy folksiness that sets them apart rather than mere content. Note Amis puts an elitist accent on cliché breaking Orwell's #5 but I like it because it reminds us that it is cleeshay rather than cleesh and I am not afraid of foreign tongues :) Philosophy is another area (besides law) rife with jargon and, if I may say, prolixity. It is an area here care is rarely taken to express oneself plainly and simply. Schopenhauer has an essay called simply enough 'On Style'[2] which starts out "Style is the physiognomy of the mind, and a safer index to character than the face.". I use this as a guiding light. Some philosophers are too important to avoid regardless of style (Hegel, Kant, Luhmann) but I am always and everywhere suspicious of any who are too verbose and needlessly opaque (Quine springs to mind). This is why I love Nietzsche so much, whatever you may say about his ideas - my God - his turn of phrase is sublime. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_War_Against_Clich%C3%A9 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_War_Against_Clich%C3%A9 [2] http://ebooks.adelaide.edu.au/s/schopenhauer/arthur/lit/contents.html http://ebooks.adelaide.edu.au/s/schopenhauer/arthur/lit/cont...
- s_baby 14y agoI approach influential works of philosophy as being analogous to mathematical proofs. It requires precision of language and verbosity for rigor. But just like math you don't need to read the proof to get the idea. I understand the idea of an integral and derivative despite the fact I cannot fully understand the proofs deriving these ideas. I can talk your ear off on Hegel despite never fully reading his work. That just wouldn't be a good use of my time. On the other hand thinkers like Derrida are obscure and practically require an understanding of Ancient Greek to say anything "authoritative". I think it leads to all sorts of hand-wavy interpretations.