Orwell's Rules for Writing: Yay or Nay?

[a completely inoffensive name]

Ok, I have been trying to figure out how to get some good content in the frontroom to provoke discussion that wasn't in the realm of the backroom but wasn't silly and could still provide a good discussion for people to be interested and involved in. I came across a piece of writing from George Orwell called, "Politics and the English Language" now, its purpose isn't political but he uses some political writing as examples of poor English writing which he felt was becoming prevalent. In it he has some guidelines/rules to follow when writing English to prevent yourself from "having the language choose your thoughts for you" instead of the other way around.

The text in question is here: http://www.resort.com/~prime8/Orwell/patee.html

Now, for the other side of the argument, there are those who disagree. Here to contest these rules is David Beaver, associate professor of linguistics at Uni of Texas, Austin.

http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=992 [warning, some colourful language! - Sec]

The question for this thread is whether Prof. Beaver has a point. Are Orwell's rules of writing contradictory or even much ado about nothing (I think I just broke one of his rules right there)? Or is Orwell correct in diagnosing a problem among contemporary English writing?

EDIT: Oh and also, is Orwell trampling over his own rules in his essay establishing said rules?

[Secura]

Try as I might, I don't understand where Orwell is coming from with these so-called 'rules for writing'; on the one hand, he likens the state of the English language to the collapse of a civilisation, then goes on to suggest several steps to rectify this that would, in my opinion, do little more than dumb literature down to it's bare bones.

I think the rule I disagree with most is "never use a foreign phrase, a scientific word, or a jargon word if you can think of an everyday English equivalent."; I can think of English alternatives to 'cliché' or 'chic', for example, but I feel none of them fit what I'm trying to say (and remain understandable to my audience) like the French words can.

However, I do think some of what Orwell says has merit, particularly "let the meaning choose the word, and not the other way around". I have never understood why there is a tendency for modern authors to settle for simple words when longer ones would fit the narrative flow better in addition to providing more description to the reader. I've always interpreted this as mere laziness on the writer's part, really.

Ultimately, I wonder what Orwell would make of the modern English language; to be honest, I think he'd find the difference to be quite jarring, particularly if he took a walk through the rougher neighbourhoods of his beloved London. I would love to see Georgie chastise me when he sees the general language trends of today's youth. :P

I guess that following his rules would make a novelist's work more accessible to the public, but does it make for a good book? I don't think so. :3

[Montmorency]

I always got the feeling he was talking about political literature. That would explain his last rule; I guess he's saying that this: "I'm glad everything is so harmonious today. Granted, there are still quite a few sour notes and people playing out of tune. And maybe even some that would like to march to the beat of a different drum... We don't beat about the bush, do we? They're sent to 'concert camps' for their further education, where they're taught to sing for their supper. And there they stay until they've changed their tune and can play along" is better than this: "We're going to kill all the socialists."

Get it?

[Centurion1]

Ok, I have been trying to figure out how to get some good content in the frontroom to provoke discussion that wasn't in the realm of the backroom but wasn't silly and could still provide a good discussion for people to be interested and involved in. I came across a piece of writing from George Orwell called, "Politics and the English Language" now, its purpose isn't political but he uses some political writing as examples of poor English writing which he felt was becoming prevalent. In it he has some guidelines/rules to follow when writing English to prevent yourself from "having the language choose your thoughts for you" instead of the other way around.

The text in question is here: http://www.resort.com/~prime8/Orwell/patee.html

Now, for the other side of the argument, there are those who disagree. Here to contest these rules is David Beaver, associate professor of linguistics at Uni of Texas, Austin.

http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=992 [warning, some colourful language! - Sec]

The question for this thread is whether Prof. Beaver has a point. Are Orwell's rules of writing contradictory or even much ado about nothing (I think I just broke one of his rules right there)? Or is Orwell correct in diagnosing a problem among contemporary English writing?

EDIT: Oh and also, is Orwell trampling over his own rules in his essay establishing said rules?

Its an ironic piece to some extent. I read it a couple years ago for a class.

Also i think he used hyperbole. If anything modern writing is often more sleek and less ornate than earlier work. The nightmares that are Russian authors stick in my head (not English writers but I obviously refer to the translations)

[Sasaki Kojiro]

David Beaver is a complete moron.


Look back through this essay, and for certain you will find that I have again and again committed the very faults I am protesting against.

Orwell's point is that WE have become used to using language in bad ways. The fact that he is making that point is very clear in the essay. So you can toss out most of Beaver from the start.

"Break any of these rules" obviously means the previous rules. And I don't mind saying that language is in decline either, the historical question is interesting but irrelevant. If it has declined in some ways (for example the introduction of a bad phrase) that is definitely a decline. So there goes the rest of it.

Orwell wrote a good essay on an important subject, he makes a study of it with tons of detail. He is trying to do something good. Beaver's post is pathetically far from that...he either skimmed or didn't understand Orwell's essay and his post is just snark.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

My phrase "interesting but irrelevant" is probably the kind of phrase Orwell is talking about.

It's true that people have a bad habit of claiming a decline compared to the past without justification, so I agree with Beaver about that. But he brings it up as a snarky attempt at poisoning the well, when really it just isn't important to the actual point of the essay, and it would have been a digression for Orwell to argue the point. But it's easy and tempting to just say "the historical question is interesting but irrelevant" instead of giving him any credit.

[tibilicus]

I remember reading Politics and the English Language last year. For someone who emphasis clarity the essay itself is full of hyperbole as previously mentioned. I got the point Orwell tried to make but his delivery is pretty awful. You don't win an argument by shouting over the loud guy even louder and likewise, Orwell didn't really win his by using complex language to make his argument seem more complex than it really is. Although the piece itself does raise the age old niggle of mine within academia, that being that academics, not all but some try to use complex and "foggy" language to make their arguments carry more intellectual weight.

There has been a couple of occasions reading some articles, books and essays that I've actually had to stop frequently to check words in a thesaurus only to dismay at the way the author has replaced a very simple word with its more obscure alternative or even its language redundant version. The worst has to be those authors who litter their whole work with Latin phrases. Not only does it ruin its readability but it presents to me at least a shallow level of intellect, a disguise to a lack of solid argument.

I also like these kind of threads ACIN, they're nice.

[Subotan]

Couple of points:


Never use a foreign phrase, a scientific word, or a jargon word if you can think of an everyday English equivalent.
Jargon are the weeds of language; technical terms that appear unwanted in writing intended for an audience without a full understanding of those terms. Those words may in some situations ease communication, so for example, a philosophy essay, so Orwell is incorrect on that point.


On the contrary, it is especially concerned with the scrapping of every word or idiom which has outworn its usefulness. It has nothing to do with correct grammar and syntax, which are of no importance so long as one makes one's meaning clear, or with the avoidance of Americanisms, or with having what is called a "good prose style."
Absolutely. Few things annoy me more than seeing people get annoyed about Americanisms, and it gives me immense satisfaction to use them, knowing that I am engaging in filthy language miscegenation.


Never us 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.

Yes, yes, yes.

Beaver's essay seems to be a poor attempt at an ironic criticism of Orwell's ironic piece. He's nitpicking, and doesn't address any of his rules in substance.

[a completely inoffensive name]

I also like these kind of threads ACIN, they're nice.

Thank you! :bow: