Do I Really Want To Write Like George Orwell?

The current issue of Writing Magazine (September 2009) contains an article called How To Write Like George Orwell, and the author (Tony Rossiter) makes some good points about clarity and brevity. It’s a useful way to look at any piece of writing, but looking at the work of authors who are acknowledged as being ‘greats’ can hamper as much as inspire. I’m not sure I would ever be able to compare something of mine to another author, even taking loose stylistic similarities into account.

Back to Orwell, and there is sense in his advice…

Never use a metaphor, simile or other figure of speech which you are used to seeing in print.
Never use a long word where a short one will do.
If it is possibly to cut a word out, always cut it out.
Never use the passive where you can use the active.
Never use a foreign phrase, a scientific word or a jargon word if you can think of an everyday English equivalent.
Break any of these rules rather than write anything outright barbarous.

Orwell knew what he was talking about, but as time has moved on there have been shifts in society, which make for some difficult choices when considering how to take some of the helpful observations. I’m completely in agreement with the elimination of overused and redundant phrases, primarily because they tend to pull a reader out of the story. Cutting out words which serve no purpose is equally valid, though I am less inclined to remove a word from a kick-ass line for fear that it might neuter the idea.

Yeah, I am familiar with the old “murder your darlings” advice dished out by writing resources. The phrase does, sadly, break Orwell’s first rule, therefore I am going to ignore it. It’s been used so often that it may as well be consigned to the scrapheap straight away, to be replaced with something similar but fresh. “Kill those kids” might be taken the wrong way given the high number of school shootings, but unless anyone has a better line…

Never use a long word. Hmmm. Considering the relative complexity of modern language, there really isn’t any way of eliminating long words. Excessive use of longer words might be limiting as far as audience is concerned, with works being considered ‘difficult’ if they contain too many. It’s a trap that I often find unavoidable. Should I simplify to entertain the masses or remain stoically determined to educate the dumber less verbose audience?

Passive phrases, while frowned upon, have certain uses. It’s unusual to find, but there are instances of passive passages that remain compelling. They have been used to show disassociation with events, and can have a powerful effect in displaying the mental breakdown in a character as they slowly remove themselves from the world around them. I’m out on a limb with this observation, but I stand by the use of passive voice in contained and limited use.

As far as foreign phrases are concerned, I can’t disagree more strongly with Orwell. Heresy? Nyet. As long as the sentence makes sense, and the foreign word doesn’t confuse things, any word can be dropped into a text. Anyway, the internet is so prevalent nowadays that a reader confused by a word can simply look it up. If using strange vocab was good enough for Anthony Burgess, then it’s an acceptable tool in the arsenal of writers interested in broadening the horizon of their work.

Scientific words can go either way. I’m partial to terms that clearly define specific and limited areas. Words which cannot be changed to a simplified alternative are increasing as more and more speciality areas crop up in computing, engineering, archaeology and other occupations. I like seeing specific uses of technical terms, especially in thrillers. Verisimilitude is hard to achieve when you are pulling your punches.

Orwell was smart enough to realize that no rule is unbreakable.

Whenever I see these types of excercises I get the feeling that some people will take the rules too seriously, and that is where pastiches and awful “wannabe” stories crop up. Don’t try to be your writing heroes, but use them as a touchstone to bounce off of every once in a while. It’s very tempting to appropriate the voice of a respected author, but anything written in that voice will be a hollow and transparent copy.

Go read Nineteen Eighty Four and see what Orwell was talking about.

An Englishman, An Irishman And A Scotsman Walk Into A Bar…

Political correctness is beginning to severely affect my reading tastes, the television I watch and the way I behave in public. It kinda crept up on me, but I have noticed that I now say things which are designed to deliberately annoy the PC-sensitive folks. I would never have dreamed of mentioning WWII to a German before the madness of the Thought Police grasped at the minds of the sheep in this country, but things have got so bad that a person can’t even say the title of this post without raising a few eyebrows.

Is this what was intended? Did the current state of bland, emotionally retarded policies on ‘proper behavior’ result directly from the equality of all, or has the bandwagon been invaded by injuns? Gee, even that metaphor is going to get some static. If you think I’m exaggerating, then you haven’t spent much time in Blighty. Damn, there I go again. Before this post degenerates into a list of things I shouldn’t be saying, I had better provide some counterbalance.

The philosophy of the political correct seems sensible enough, as far as any political idea can. Of course, when actual human beings try to implement abstract ideas, well… Can you say “vested interests” for me? Yup, the entire debacle has been hijacked by minority interests, cliques and the allegedly ‘persecuted’ members of society. Which is why (big breath, prepare for a shitstorm) you can’t call the Welsh sheep-shaggers any more. But why? It isn’t as if the phrase is meant seriously, and shouldn’t be taken seriously any more than the Irish are stupid, the Scots drunkards and skinflints or the English a bunch of soccer hooligans.

It’s turns of phrase, which have added shorthand jocularity to the language since days of yore. And it isn’t just the obvious things which have come under fire.

I managed to upset a room full of people with a comment about German organizational abilities. I’m not going to repeat the comment here, because having an entire nation out for my blood seems foolish – even to me – despite the fact that I WAS RIGHT. C’mon, can you think of any other country which has he ability to set up something as complicated and time-critical as an invasion of Poland or the concentration camps. Uh-oh. See what you made me do? I went and repeated the comment which pissed everyone off.

Regardless, at least I didn’t point out anything else. Wouldn’t want  to upset anyone deliberately.

I’m forced to respect things like the Aussie jokebook, despite the fact that Australians have been destroying the English language for years now.

Maybe the push of PC thought has made me more determined to push the boundaries, but I honestly believe that the only people offended by comments are the people who set out to look for things which will offend them. I’ll make a big recommendation for The Life Of Brian as being one of the funniest films ever made, and it has nothing to do with any perceived ‘controversial’ elements. It’s fucking hilarious. Which takes me back to the element of “bad language” which offends people. Bah.

I can’t win.

We’re now living in 1984.