one more thing
this is an english paper. it's pretty short and (hopefully) funny, too. if anyone feels like reading it and giving feedback, that would rock. but no pressure because yeah, homework=lots, etc.
Barbarity In Writing
George Orwell has six rules for good writing. The last rule of this six is “Break any of these rules sooner than say anything outright barbarous.” What may seem like an afterthought might in fact be the most important, in some cases.
Orwell’s first rule is “Never use a metaphor, simile, or other figure of speech which you are used to seeing in print.” In some cases, the phrase is unnecessary, like saying that a two-for one sale is like killing two birds with one stone. Or the metaphor is misused or makes no sense in that context, like towing the line (it’s toeing, and doesn’t mean what you think it means). In other cases, however, making up your own metaphor, or leaving out a good one could be detrimental to your essay. A high school student once wrote that “He hit the pavement like a hefty bag full of tomato soup.” Whether that metaphor is good or not could be debated, but it conveniently slips under Orwell’s rule, as I’m almost positive that most people aren’t used to seeing that one in print.
The second rule is “Never use a long word where a short one will do.” This rule is usually a good one to go by, especially for those with an indolent tendency towards superfluous loquaciousness and a dependency on the thesaurus. Good old plain english works especially well for writers like Hemingway, who advocated a similar rule for writers. But one must understand the distinction between Richard and Jane rested under golden leaves by a glassy pond and Dick and Jane sat under a tree by the water. By removing any description that might be perceived as long, the passage loses much of it’s charm.
A similar problem occurs in rule number three: “If it is possible to cut a word out, always cut it out.” Five adjectives and two adverbs might hinder your sentence; She stared dreamily out of the frosty and cold window at the barren, harsh and wintery landscape. But cutting all of them (as an overeager writer or editor might) and you are left with She stared out of the window at the landscape, which is really a rather dull sentence.
Rule number four, “Never use the passive where you can use the active,” generally works out all right, as long as the editor is aware of times when the passive is necessary. I have been in the process of considering is very, very passive and could be rewritten as I have considered, but not as I consider. The difficulty in following this rule stems more from the distinction between past and present than passive and active, but misapplication of the rule certainly counts as a barbarity.
Finally, rule five, which says “Never use a foreign phrase, a scientific word, or a jargon word if you can think of an everyday English equivalent.” The problem here is again over-enthusiasm in editing. There’s no harm done in adding a little je ne sais quoi, and it just isn’t the same to say something I can’t quite put my finger on.
The key here is balance. Orwell was a good writer, not a god. His rules are good for most situations, but they are not the rules, and to follow them to the letter in every case would be just as bad as ignoring them completely.
je vous aimez, muah
Barbarity In Writing
George Orwell has six rules for good writing. The last rule of this six is “Break any of these rules sooner than say anything outright barbarous.” What may seem like an afterthought might in fact be the most important, in some cases.
Orwell’s first rule is “Never use a metaphor, simile, or other figure of speech which you are used to seeing in print.” In some cases, the phrase is unnecessary, like saying that a two-for one sale is like killing two birds with one stone. Or the metaphor is misused or makes no sense in that context, like towing the line (it’s toeing, and doesn’t mean what you think it means). In other cases, however, making up your own metaphor, or leaving out a good one could be detrimental to your essay. A high school student once wrote that “He hit the pavement like a hefty bag full of tomato soup.” Whether that metaphor is good or not could be debated, but it conveniently slips under Orwell’s rule, as I’m almost positive that most people aren’t used to seeing that one in print.
The second rule is “Never use a long word where a short one will do.” This rule is usually a good one to go by, especially for those with an indolent tendency towards superfluous loquaciousness and a dependency on the thesaurus. Good old plain english works especially well for writers like Hemingway, who advocated a similar rule for writers. But one must understand the distinction between Richard and Jane rested under golden leaves by a glassy pond and Dick and Jane sat under a tree by the water. By removing any description that might be perceived as long, the passage loses much of it’s charm.
A similar problem occurs in rule number three: “If it is possible to cut a word out, always cut it out.” Five adjectives and two adverbs might hinder your sentence; She stared dreamily out of the frosty and cold window at the barren, harsh and wintery landscape. But cutting all of them (as an overeager writer or editor might) and you are left with She stared out of the window at the landscape, which is really a rather dull sentence.
Rule number four, “Never use the passive where you can use the active,” generally works out all right, as long as the editor is aware of times when the passive is necessary. I have been in the process of considering is very, very passive and could be rewritten as I have considered, but not as I consider. The difficulty in following this rule stems more from the distinction between past and present than passive and active, but misapplication of the rule certainly counts as a barbarity.
Finally, rule five, which says “Never use a foreign phrase, a scientific word, or a jargon word if you can think of an everyday English equivalent.” The problem here is again over-enthusiasm in editing. There’s no harm done in adding a little je ne sais quoi, and it just isn’t the same to say something I can’t quite put my finger on.
The key here is balance. Orwell was a good writer, not a god. His rules are good for most situations, but they are not the rules, and to follow them to the letter in every case would be just as bad as ignoring them completely.
je vous aimez, muah