Posts Tagged George Orwell
Politics and the English Language, Rule 5
Posted by yoursinwriting in Writing Tips on April 21st, 2009
Rule 5: Never use a foreign phrase, a scientific word, or a jargon word if you can think of an everyday English equivalent.
Nobody likes a know-it-all. For convenience’s sake, let’s refer to all language that may baffle your readers as “jargon.” Orwell feels that using jargon is “never” a good idea. In the best case, a writer may use this language with the intent of impressing their readers rather than informing them. In the worst case, a politician may use this language to obscure the truth, or intimidate the reader. Consider terms like “friendly fire” and “collateral damage” and you start to understand the possible abuse. The great fear is that by using the same jargon over time, without explanation, to refer to different scenarios or objects, politicians can slowly expand the meaning of that jargon, until its new interpretation is weaker, stronger, or broader than before. Orwell is correct in his assessment that jargon can do more harm than good when used with ignorance or malice.
I’d point out one exception to this rule, which is hopefully obvious: use jargon when it is natural to the story, but be sure to explain its meaning. For example, if your character is an officer in the Iraq war, it would be odd for him to say:
“We’re finally getting some upgraded vehicles to handle all these improvised explosive devices.”
Much more natural would be something like:
“We’re finally getting some upgraded vehicles to handle all these IEDs,” the general said. Over twenty soldiers had been lost to improvised explosive devices in just the last 60 days.
Unfortunately, IEDs have become part of the common vernacular, so depending on the intended audience, the explanation may not even be needed. But for more obscure jargon, introducing and then explaining the jargon is a great way to give your characters authenticity while building curiosity in your readers. As with most of Orwell’s other pet peeves, the key to using jargon is tactful intent. Using jargon because it exists is almost certain to impair your writing, or make the reader suspicious of your aims. But don’t be afraid to use jargon appropriately, sparingly, and with timely explanation.
Politics and the English Language, Rule 4
Posted by yoursinwriting in Writing Tips on April 14th, 2009
Rule 4: “Never use the passive where you can use the active.”
For most people, identifying passive voice is like finding a dangling participle in a metaphorical haystack. Let’s look at an example:
Active voice:
Andy embraced Vivian.
Passive voice:
Vivian was embraced by Andy.
Not only does the active voice usually require fewer words (making it play nice with Rule 3), it is also more direct, more clear, and more compelling.
Consider the clarity of this example:
Active voice:
Vivian told Andy to put down the gun.
Passive voice:
Andy was told to put down the gun by Vivian.
In this passive voice example, did Vivian tell Andy to put down the gun, or did some other actor tell Andy to put the gun down near (by) Vivian? Of course, it could also be constructed like this:
Andy was told by Vivian to put down the gun.
but your narrative ear should be screaming in pain from the sound of that.
Remember, the order should always be subject (the person doing the action), verb (the action being performed), object (the target of the action, if it exists). With passive voice, the order becomes object, verb, subject; one good way to look for this is to quickly search your document for common past-tense verbs, like “was” or “had” and check those sentences to see if you have a weakness for the passive voice.
Is there ever a reason to use passive voice? Orwell’s rule says “never use the passive where you can use the active” (emphasis mine), which suggests that there are times when using the active voice is not appropriate. My opinion is that the passive form should only be used if you intend to create a sense of disconnection, vagueness, or confusion. For example, if you were describing a burial scene, it might capture the numb disbelief of the mother of the deceased to write, “Her son’s coffin was placed in the ground. She was taken by arm and led to the car. A glass of water was placed in her hand.” Note that we do not know who placed the coffin in the ground, who took her by the arm, or who gave her the water; we only know these things happen. It is for exactly this reason that Orwell loathes the passive voice: politicians commonly use the passive voice to describe events with the intend of deflecting blame or responsibility:
“To the best of my recollection, my fraud began in the early nineteen-nineties.”
-Bernard Madoff, on stealing billions from investors in a Ponzi scheme
“Universality has been severely reduced: it is virtually dead as a concept in most areas of public policy.“
-Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper
“And certainly it was not wrong to try to secure freedom for our citizens held in barbaric captivity. But we did not achieve what we wished, and serious mistakes were made in trying to do so.”
-Ronald Reagan, on the Iran-Contra scandal
Politics and the English Language, Rule 3
Posted by yoursinwriting in Writing Tips on April 7th, 2009
This is part of a series on George Orwell’s essay Politics and the English Language.
Rule 3: “If it is possible to cut a word out, always cut it out.”
Editing is the hardest part of writing. If a piece of writing were an iceberg, editing would be the 90% hidden underwater. While editing can involve selecting different words, or adding new paragraphs for clarity or completeness, by far the most valuable– and tricky– editing is reducing the word count.
Cutting words from your writing is valuable because it intensifies your writing. Just like reducing a broth brings out its flavour, dropping unnecessary words clarifies the meaning and sharpens the point of your work. Of course, all things in moderation: good writers know when to stop cutting.
“Brevity is the soul of wit.”
-Lord Polonius, in Shakespeare’s Hamlet
“Brevity is… wit”
-The Simpsons
Modern schooling ensures we all experience the frustration of finishing an English paper, only to find it is too short. We have the unconscious belief that longer is better, when common sense tells us that someone who can convey the same idea in fewer words, without losing nuance or beauty, is the better writer.
How do you start? A good first step is to start assassinating adjectives. Search for words like “really,” “very,” “kind of,” and “incredibly.” Cut them out, then read the sentence again, and I bet you’ll find it’s stronger. Adjectives are anathema. Used sparingly, they add spice to your work, but slathered on thick and without discretion they leave a bad taste in the reader’s mouth.
Have ideas on how to tighten up your prose? Leave them in the comments!
Politics and the English Language, Rule 2
Posted by yoursinwriting in Writing Tips on March 30th, 2009
This post is part of a series dedicated to George Orwell’s essay Politics and the English Language.
Rule 2: “Never use a long word where a short one will do.”
There is an important nuance to this rule: Orwell urges for truth through clarity, but not at the expense of the message. He is not suggesting avoiding long words, but rather stressing that when two words are equivalent, the shorter should be used.
A reader should be forced to decrypt a long word when that word enriches the work, but not when it interrupts the flow like a jackknifed tractor trailer. This is what the art of writing is about; mastery of a vocabulary and its tactful application.
Above all, be as precise as you can in your writing. For example, if a character in your story stumbles upon their lover in bed with somebody else, using “upset” over “speechless” or “enraged” would be inaccurate.
(Which is to say, wrong.)
RSS Subscription
Recent Comments