I found Hemingway a disappointment. I only read “The old man and the sea” and “Fiesta” but even that was a struggle. Perhaps i just didn’t get it, but to me Hemingway was just an over-rated egotist, more famous for the company he kept rather than what he had to say about anything. Change my mind!
This reminds me of a passage from Chesterton's Orthodoxy (had to look up which chapter, turns out it's Chapter VIII, the Romance of Orthodoxy) where he talks about long words as a sign of laziness in our modern busy world. "The long words are not the hard words, it is the short words that are hard. There is much more metaphysical subtlety in the word “damn” than in the word “degeneration.”"
Also, my grade 12 English teacher did an excellent job to pushing me to be direct. Probably lots of summarizing of passages of text and then editing them shorter is a good technique to practice writing more succinctly.
Oh he's wonderful! But I did find that with his nonfiction, it is best to read each section (chapter) in one sitting rather than in little chunks. Also, Dale Ahlquist of the American Chesterton Society has published an edition of The Everlasting Man with footnotes and commentary to help you understand some of the references that were very specific to Chesterton's time.
I agree to some extent. But personal style is also pertinent. I love rare & long words, & feel I’m missing something without them. Long and rare words are not found in everyday speech.
In the same way that mathematicians see beauty in a long equation, I see beauty in long & rare words: they are for the soul like an aged wine or whisky.
Even Orwell sought mass appeal.
I’m not afraid of long words. I’m not hippopotamonstrosesquippedaliophobic.
But your readers could be, so please be careful of that (and purple PROSE) if you publish your writing God knows I didn't continue so many books cuz of their over descriptive over the top word usage. Those words and prose's didn't even match the books theme and genre and shi.
A book written for everyone is a book that appeals to no one. Let simple word readers find their champion and the complex word readers will gravitate to theirs. Neither is inferior. Literature doesn't need broad appeal lol
I strongly feel that the attention given to “the audience” in lots of English teaching is what kills budding writers. They never get to go off and be dreamy (with at least some direction) because getting constantly told you’re misusing bigs words is just thrown on you with zero direction. In short, I agree lol
I understand that. I struggled for example with James Joyce’s ‘Ulysses’.
In order to gain admission into studies for a science degree majoring in geology, I persevered with maths & physics, in school & uni, which, although I found the concepts fascinating, did not enjoy. Words are my way of thinking & expressing myself, as it was with my sister & parents. It may be an inherited trait.
While not on eg the level of Shakespeare, he invented words, which I haven’t done, yet. The main tendency I try to avoid is to use too many words, as I’ve just done here! As for the length or obscurity of words, it’s never been easier to look them up. One can get an old pocket Oxford dictionary cheaply.
True that, I prefer tough words over purple prose full books. But still, I guess I love my books medium lol. I also didn't take maths in high-school for the same reason btw, but I do enjoy frying my brain with physics.
Whilst perambulating the dialectical contours of your most recent ideational exposition, I found myself ensnared in a veritable smorgasbord of paradigmatic semiotics — a chiaroscuro of thought that evokes, nay, conjures the ineffable essence of ontological truthiness. The metaphorical scaffolding upon which your thesis pirouettes is, dare I say, not unlike a flamingo attempting ballet on a frozen duck pond — precarious yet transcendent. One is inevitably reminded of the German concept of Weltschmerz, particularly when viewed through a Baudrillardian lens, wherein the simulacrum dissolves into a tantric miasma of post-structuralist longing. Your prose, positively effulgent, dances across the page like a neoclassical banshee high on epistemological ennui. If I were forced — and only under duress — to offer critique, it would be your conspicuous avoidance of polyphonic dissonance, which, as you surely know, is essential to any work aspiring toward dialectical transcendence. Nevertheless, I remain yours, in florid solidarity and linguistic awe.
I used to teach this essay to my high school students. Every word of his is true and significant. The problem lies in the aim to make political pieces "writing with honesty and precision." Too many times, sadly, political speeches, statements, policies, etc. are precisely intended to diffuse and blur the lines. Sigh.
I like a lot of this advice and am a huge fan of Orwell's work, however I do think a lot of this advice is about making your point more accessible to the masses and common people rather than those more privileged with education. This was a massive part of his entire message, though. He was actively critiquing society and government, and by lessening the number of complex words or phrases, it appealed to those who don't experience that level of privilege and are therefore able to comprehend it's true meaning of cautionary tales. So overall, much of his writing advice is helpful and informative, but it mostly leans towards his style and outlet of expression for the greater and more widespread understanding.
Earlier in "Politics and the English Language" he writes about preferring Anglo-Saxon words to words that come from Latin or Greek, and I like that his final disclaimer concludes with "barbarous."
It’s a worthy exercise to read Orwell’s essay with his own rules in mind. Orwell himself was happy to use big words when small would do, to use passive constructions and wry irony, and to associate powerful simplicity with Big Brother’s rhetoric. Simplicity isn’t magically virtuous, it’s just really difficult. Thanks!
I agree with some of what is written here. Where I’m not entirely convinced is the approach to language. Specifically, the choice of words.
As a reader, I actually enjoy encountering older or less commonly used words. They add richness, depth, and a certain beauty to the texts. I see them as an invitation to expand my vocabulary rather than something to hide or delete.
In a way, I believe this is also how we keep a language alive, not by limiting it, but by continuing to use and rediscover the full range of expression it could offer.
Great points. I also believe word choice and structure depend heavily on what you are writing and whom you are writing for. Use of clear and direct sentences is, arguably, essential for basic daily news reporting. Clarity is a baseline in some genres and a choice in others.
This may sound nuts, but I often tell people that if they want to understand the point of writing, they should go read the first few stanzas of Tintern Abbey by William Wordsworth. He has a line at the end of that part talking about the ability to “see into the life of things.” That’s what good writing should do for the reader.
When I write I use the simplest terms ever I use my words well that anyone who pick up my journal or go to my note softcopy or hardcopy can feel in the moment.
Yeah some times the ambiguous (big) words grammar can be a way for one to ace up their Grammer knowledge,but to what extent do we use em why use what you don't use in your daily speech to wrote and the reader have to wonder what every phrase ,word,sentence mean
Very helpful for a writer just starting out! This stuff is very important in the theology world. I’m looking to make difficult concepts about very important topics as clear as possible.
One thing does come to mind though… maybe it’s just my preference poking through, but I feel like when I read learning new words is one of my favorite parts. When I use them, it almost feels like I’m teaching my readers. Anyone have any thoughts on that?
This is good stuff! Hemingway immediately comes to mind here. He well understood the value of direct language and word economy.
I honestly can't think of any other writing fast enough other than him!
I found Hemingway a disappointment. I only read “The old man and the sea” and “Fiesta” but even that was a struggle. Perhaps i just didn’t get it, but to me Hemingway was just an over-rated egotist, more famous for the company he kept rather than what he had to say about anything. Change my mind!
Me too
I like 'word economy' :)
Hemingway is one of my favorites
This reminds me of a passage from Chesterton's Orthodoxy (had to look up which chapter, turns out it's Chapter VIII, the Romance of Orthodoxy) where he talks about long words as a sign of laziness in our modern busy world. "The long words are not the hard words, it is the short words that are hard. There is much more metaphysical subtlety in the word “damn” than in the word “degeneration.”"
Also, my grade 12 English teacher did an excellent job to pushing me to be direct. Probably lots of summarizing of passages of text and then editing them shorter is a good technique to practice writing more succinctly.
… “metaphysical subtlety”? Give me a break.
Aristotle’s metaphysics doesn’t use big words at all. The way Catholic intellectuals use that term is honest.
I was a big fan of Chesterton in my adolescence. I must give him another try.
Oh he's wonderful! But I did find that with his nonfiction, it is best to read each section (chapter) in one sitting rather than in little chunks. Also, Dale Ahlquist of the American Chesterton Society has published an edition of The Everlasting Man with footnotes and commentary to help you understand some of the references that were very specific to Chesterton's time.
I had to read Chesterton's line again.
Truly, short words are the hard words.
I agree to some extent. But personal style is also pertinent. I love rare & long words, & feel I’m missing something without them. Long and rare words are not found in everyday speech.
In the same way that mathematicians see beauty in a long equation, I see beauty in long & rare words: they are for the soul like an aged wine or whisky.
Even Orwell sought mass appeal.
I’m not afraid of long words. I’m not hippopotamonstrosesquippedaliophobic.
But your readers could be, so please be careful of that (and purple PROSE) if you publish your writing God knows I didn't continue so many books cuz of their over descriptive over the top word usage. Those words and prose's didn't even match the books theme and genre and shi.
A book written for everyone is a book that appeals to no one. Let simple word readers find their champion and the complex word readers will gravitate to theirs. Neither is inferior. Literature doesn't need broad appeal lol
I strongly feel that the attention given to “the audience” in lots of English teaching is what kills budding writers. They never get to go off and be dreamy (with at least some direction) because getting constantly told you’re misusing bigs words is just thrown on you with zero direction. In short, I agree lol
I understand that. I struggled for example with James Joyce’s ‘Ulysses’.
In order to gain admission into studies for a science degree majoring in geology, I persevered with maths & physics, in school & uni, which, although I found the concepts fascinating, did not enjoy. Words are my way of thinking & expressing myself, as it was with my sister & parents. It may be an inherited trait.
While not on eg the level of Shakespeare, he invented words, which I haven’t done, yet. The main tendency I try to avoid is to use too many words, as I’ve just done here! As for the length or obscurity of words, it’s never been easier to look them up. One can get an old pocket Oxford dictionary cheaply.
True that, I prefer tough words over purple prose full books. But still, I guess I love my books medium lol. I also didn't take maths in high-school for the same reason btw, but I do enjoy frying my brain with physics.
I keep seeing this word purple prose books care to explain?
Hi good evening
Yes, I like rule 6 best. We should be prepared to rebel if it feels right.
Take a your disciple Russell 🙇🙇✍️, I want to learn from you
True…
But it still depends on the mood of the reader…
Someday they'll prefer hot glass of coffee that they can sip leisurely. And someday they'll prefer cold shot of tequila.
Hi
To honor Orwell's advice, you may want to replace the phrase "increase the quality of" (your writing) with "improve."
Whilst perambulating the dialectical contours of your most recent ideational exposition, I found myself ensnared in a veritable smorgasbord of paradigmatic semiotics — a chiaroscuro of thought that evokes, nay, conjures the ineffable essence of ontological truthiness. The metaphorical scaffolding upon which your thesis pirouettes is, dare I say, not unlike a flamingo attempting ballet on a frozen duck pond — precarious yet transcendent. One is inevitably reminded of the German concept of Weltschmerz, particularly when viewed through a Baudrillardian lens, wherein the simulacrum dissolves into a tantric miasma of post-structuralist longing. Your prose, positively effulgent, dances across the page like a neoclassical banshee high on epistemological ennui. If I were forced — and only under duress — to offer critique, it would be your conspicuous avoidance of polyphonic dissonance, which, as you surely know, is essential to any work aspiring toward dialectical transcendence. Nevertheless, I remain yours, in florid solidarity and linguistic awe.
Bellisimo!!!
This is the best comment so far. Veni, vidi, scripsi
😂😂😂😂😂😂
I used to teach this essay to my high school students. Every word of his is true and significant. The problem lies in the aim to make political pieces "writing with honesty and precision." Too many times, sadly, political speeches, statements, policies, etc. are precisely intended to diffuse and blur the lines. Sigh.
I have written speeches for politicians and can confirm what you say.
I like a lot of this advice and am a huge fan of Orwell's work, however I do think a lot of this advice is about making your point more accessible to the masses and common people rather than those more privileged with education. This was a massive part of his entire message, though. He was actively critiquing society and government, and by lessening the number of complex words or phrases, it appealed to those who don't experience that level of privilege and are therefore able to comprehend it's true meaning of cautionary tales. So overall, much of his writing advice is helpful and informative, but it mostly leans towards his style and outlet of expression for the greater and more widespread understanding.
Earlier in "Politics and the English Language" he writes about preferring Anglo-Saxon words to words that come from Latin or Greek, and I like that his final disclaimer concludes with "barbarous."
It wasn't Greek to him.
It’s a worthy exercise to read Orwell’s essay with his own rules in mind. Orwell himself was happy to use big words when small would do, to use passive constructions and wry irony, and to associate powerful simplicity with Big Brother’s rhetoric. Simplicity isn’t magically virtuous, it’s just really difficult. Thanks!
It is good that Rule 6 is included.
Very good. I enjoyed this piece. Restacked!
I agree with some of what is written here. Where I’m not entirely convinced is the approach to language. Specifically, the choice of words.
As a reader, I actually enjoy encountering older or less commonly used words. They add richness, depth, and a certain beauty to the texts. I see them as an invitation to expand my vocabulary rather than something to hide or delete.
In a way, I believe this is also how we keep a language alive, not by limiting it, but by continuing to use and rediscover the full range of expression it could offer.
Great points. I also believe word choice and structure depend heavily on what you are writing and whom you are writing for. Use of clear and direct sentences is, arguably, essential for basic daily news reporting. Clarity is a baseline in some genres and a choice in others.
Indirect language is the prime indicator of inexperience or dishonesty. We would all do well to seek clarity over cleverness.
This may sound nuts, but I often tell people that if they want to understand the point of writing, they should go read the first few stanzas of Tintern Abbey by William Wordsworth. He has a line at the end of that part talking about the ability to “see into the life of things.” That’s what good writing should do for the reader.
This !
I agree with this
When I write I use the simplest terms ever I use my words well that anyone who pick up my journal or go to my note softcopy or hardcopy can feel in the moment.
Yeah some times the ambiguous (big) words grammar can be a way for one to ace up their Grammer knowledge,but to what extent do we use em why use what you don't use in your daily speech to wrote and the reader have to wonder what every phrase ,word,sentence mean
Very helpful for a writer just starting out! This stuff is very important in the theology world. I’m looking to make difficult concepts about very important topics as clear as possible.
One thing does come to mind though… maybe it’s just my preference poking through, but I feel like when I read learning new words is one of my favorite parts. When I use them, it almost feels like I’m teaching my readers. Anyone have any thoughts on that?
Yeah, very true.
Reading should also be an occasion for learning.
Moreso, it would be more helpful if the writer has the reader in mind while using the big words.