Recently I was reading on several of the discussion threads and I found a few comments concerning certain community members' violations of these rules. I had never heard of them before now, so I googled them, desiring to learn more about them. Even after my google search, I don't feel that I fully understand them. Would anyone care to enlighten me on the subject with a more than superficial explanation of each of the six rules? Perhaps you could take just one rule and explain it a bit, allowing others to explain the remaining rules? Any help here would be appreciated. Thank you.

Views: 191

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Sure.  I'll go for #2.  (You might post the list for others who want to contribute.)

(ii) Never use a long word where a short one will do. 

Long words are harder to read than short ones, even if you know what they mean.  "The tintinnabulation audible though emanating from no corporeal genesis."  I can puzzle it out (after all, I wrote it.)  But if I'd said "ringing in the ears," you wouldn't have to puzzle it out; you'd know at once.

It's not just for ease of use.  Orwell mentions "the liquidation of undesirable elements," which means "mass killing."  The long-word evasion makes it easier to trick people, or oneself, into going along with horrible crimes.  Or, as Orwell says, 

Consider for instance some comfortable English professor defending Russian totalitarianism. He cannot say outright, "I believe in killing off your opponents when you can get good results by doing so." Probably, therefore, he will say something like this:

While freely conceding that the Soviet regime exhibits certain features which the humanitarian may be inclined to deplore, we must, I think, agree that a certain curtailment of the right to political opposition is an unavoidable concomitant of transitional periods, and that the rigors which the Russian people have been called upon to undergo have been amply justified in the sphere of concrete achievement. 

...politics [thereby becomes] a mass of lies, evasions, folly, hatred and schizophrenia.

The rules are generally interpreted as follows:

Never use a metaphor, simile, or other figure of speech which you are used to seeing in print.

Stop saying things "Achilles heel" or "his plate is full"; say "weakness" or "he has a lot of work".

Never use a long word where a short one will do.

Don't needlessly use longer words for the sake of sounding intellectual.

If it is possible to cut a word out, always cut it out.

Don't be redundant. Don't needlessly use words and make your sentences longer in an attempt to sound eloquent.

Never use the passive where you can use the active.

Don't say "Bad sentences were written by Gentleman Engineer"; say "Gentleman Engineer wrote bad sentences". ;)

Never use a foreign phrase, a scientific word, or a jargon word if you can think of an everyday English equivalent.

Don't say things like "You have carte blanche to create a chef d'oeuvre. It is your raison d'être. Voilà!" because you have perfectly good English words to say the same thing: "You have complete freedom to create a masterpiece. It is your reason for being. There you have it!"

Break any of these rules sooner than say anything outright barbarous.

The rules are actually guidelines. If trying to following them makes you harder to understand then don't follow them.

Huh. I was taught the active/passive thing in grade school. Did Orwell popularize that rule?

I suspect that stating the rule predates him, but IDK.  It's certain that the passive voice was a drag even before Orwell.

For sure. He just brought it back to the attention of the masses.

Such thoughts would exist within literature much in the manner that brutalism would exist within architecture.

Brutalism can be quite beautiful. There are loads of fans of brutalism out there.

http://fuckyeahbrutalism.tumblr.com/

One would defer to that opine in the possession of a certain Welsh Prince...

The overuse of metaphor is definitely noticeable in bloviation.  If something is handed on a silver platter, or if someone has a swan song, it's time to edit.

Sports analogies.

Attend any business meeting of any kind anywhere in English-speaking North America and start counting the sports analogies. Brutal.

RSS

Latest Activity

Todd McFarland replied to Christopher Everet's discussion How do you handle just being friends with your crush?
"The answer is simple. If you haven't already, make your feelings for her clear.  You don't want to walk away without knowing for sure that you are in the friend zone. If she puts you in the friend zone, forget about her and move on.…"
5 hours ago
Todd McFarland replied to George Corbul's discussion How does one become a 'real' man exactly?
"+1"
5 hours ago
Todd McFarland replied to George Corbul's discussion How does one become a 'real' man exactly?
"Agreed that women's ideas vary widely, which means there are women for who like whatever type of man you want to be.   Don't let any woman define what a real man is for you.  That's ass-backwards."
5 hours ago
Jesse Dean replied to Jesse Dean's discussion What Would You Do?
"What? It was light hearted. I don't think I can learn how to read people's minds and tell if their dad is the coach of the team. But thank you. Maybe they aren't that helpful."
11 hours ago
Jesse Dean replied to Jesse Dean's discussion What Would You Do?
"How can I resist when someone is wearing something like that here?"
11 hours ago
derick bean posted a status
11 hours ago
Pale Horse replied to Portnoy's discussion History in the group The Great Debate
"But it's not delivery. It's Digiorno's."
12 hours ago
Pale Horse replied to Pale Horse's discussion They Who Shall Not Be Named in the group The Great Debate
"Yeah, they essentially funneled the protesters to clash with antifa. Look up the history of the vice mayor and tell me what you find."
12 hours ago

© 2017   Created by Brett McKay.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service