George Orwell's 6 rules for writing (2018; originally published in 1946)(infusion.media)
infusion.media
George Orwell's 6 rules for writing (2018; originally published in 1946)
https://infusion.media/blog/george-orwells-six-rules-for-writing/
115 comments
A really good book on improving your (nonfiction) writing is Zinsser's On Writing Well.
For me the hardest part of effective writing is revision. There are the few lucky writers who get things right in the first draft. Then there are the rest of us, who need to spend 10x the time or longer on rewriting and fussing. Unfortunately many people in the latter group think they fall into the first.
In tech essays in particular, you can get far by trying to sound as little like Paul Graham as possible. Let his style be your anti-lodestar.
For me the hardest part of effective writing is revision. There are the few lucky writers who get things right in the first draft. Then there are the rest of us, who need to spend 10x the time or longer on rewriting and fussing. Unfortunately many people in the latter group think they fall into the first.
In tech essays in particular, you can get far by trying to sound as little like Paul Graham as possible. Let his style be your anti-lodestar.
[deleted]
It’s hard to argue that pg isn’t one of the most influential tech writers of all time. YC’s original batches came largely from people who read his essays and joined YC.
I’d agree with you that his writing doesn’t have much personality; it’s designed not to have any. But you’re saying that you can get “quite far” by going in the other direction. By what metric? You can go quite far by jumping off a cliff, at least till you hit the ground.
I’d agree with you that his writing doesn’t have much personality; it’s designed not to have any. But you’re saying that you can get “quite far” by going in the other direction. By what metric? You can go quite far by jumping off a cliff, at least till you hit the ground.
>his writing doesn’t have much personality; it’s designed not to have any
I completely disagree. It's possible to be so used to it that you don't notice it. To me his style has very clear voice, one that speaks in a very calm, self-assured manner, always mixing fact and opinion. Yes, it's not quirky like mango.pdf.zone or dry like a research paper, but it still has a very recognizable personality.
I completely disagree. It's possible to be so used to it that you don't notice it. To me his style has very clear voice, one that speaks in a very calm, self-assured manner, always mixing fact and opinion. Yes, it's not quirky like mango.pdf.zone or dry like a research paper, but it still has a very recognizable personality.
Kenny G is the best-selling instrumental artist of all time, but a serious saxophone player would do well not to sound like him. By that metric.
I figured your criticism was just a “look at me, I hate pg” with no substance, but it’s always disappointing to see it confirmed. Having substance would require having reasons, which always seem to be in short supply whenever people argue against pg’s style.
I’m not personally a fan of smooth jazz, but at least Kenny G is well-known. That’s a pretty good metric to aim for when writing, isn’t it?
I’m not personally a fan of smooth jazz, but at least Kenny G is well-known. That’s a pretty good metric to aim for when writing, isn’t it?
Kenny G and smooth jazz get a lot of hate, and most of it is from people who are hating on Kenny G as a kind of “etiquette” to mark that they’re in the right social group—same kind of thing you do by talking about your Prius or whatever other annoying thing people do to put themselves in the right group.
Smooth jazz and related genres like adult contemporary are easy targets here (maybe we can pick on Phil Collins next). People love to talk about how much they hate these genres. And then there’s all the people who say they listen to “everything but country and rap”, which is at this point a cliché.
It’s all just to show that you’re in the right social group, and less about whether you (personally) took a chance and listened to smooth jazz, then decided what your personal feelings are about it. We’re social creatures and it takes a ton of effort to give music, culture, or people a chance without trying to evaluate our choices through the lens of what is acceptable for our social in-group or the social in-group we aspire to.
Most people who “listen to everything” are just saying that because it’s the kind of sentiment that their social in-group values, and if you dig into the actual listening habits “listens to everything” you won’t find anything surprising or unusual.
Smooth jazz and related genres like adult contemporary are easy targets here (maybe we can pick on Phil Collins next). People love to talk about how much they hate these genres. And then there’s all the people who say they listen to “everything but country and rap”, which is at this point a cliché.
It’s all just to show that you’re in the right social group, and less about whether you (personally) took a chance and listened to smooth jazz, then decided what your personal feelings are about it. We’re social creatures and it takes a ton of effort to give music, culture, or people a chance without trying to evaluate our choices through the lens of what is acceptable for our social in-group or the social in-group we aspire to.
Most people who “listen to everything” are just saying that because it’s the kind of sentiment that their social in-group values, and if you dig into the actual listening habits “listens to everything” you won’t find anything surprising or unusual.
> People love to talk about how much they hate these genres.
Such a good point. There are genres that I tend to dislike (although I can point to specific works in them than I love). But my response is really just to not listen to them rather than advocate against them. These are issues of preference, not right and wrong.
> We’re social creatures and it takes a ton of effort to give music, culture, or people a chance
This is true. With music, I noticed a long time ago that much of the music that I love the most is music that I didn't care for at first listen. It was only after listening (really listening, not just playing in the background) multiple times that I learned they were great.
Such a good point. There are genres that I tend to dislike (although I can point to specific works in them than I love). But my response is really just to not listen to them rather than advocate against them. These are issues of preference, not right and wrong.
> We’re social creatures and it takes a ton of effort to give music, culture, or people a chance
This is true. With music, I noticed a long time ago that much of the music that I love the most is music that I didn't care for at first listen. It was only after listening (really listening, not just playing in the background) multiple times that I learned they were great.
You all know that by having an extended discussion of how underrated Kenny G is, you're proving some kind of point about the reverence people here have for Paul Graham's writing, right? I don't know precisely what point it is, but it's unlikely to be one that Paul Graham himself would be thrilled about. Graham certainly does not see himself as the Kenny G of technical and business essayists.
> I don't know precisely what point it is
Could you give us a hint? I honestly have no idea what you’re getting at.
I’d also like to clarify that this is not a discussion about whether Kenny G is underrated, but whether people hate Kenny G simply because it’s fashionable to do so. The whole problem I have here is that it was irrelevant in the first place whether Kenny G is good or not, because “whether Kenny G is actually good” is not a question some people are willing to investigate.
Could you give us a hint? I honestly have no idea what you’re getting at.
I’d also like to clarify that this is not a discussion about whether Kenny G is underrated, but whether people hate Kenny G simply because it’s fashionable to do so. The whole problem I have here is that it was irrelevant in the first place whether Kenny G is good or not, because “whether Kenny G is actually good” is not a question some people are willing to investigate.
It seems like it's not exactly a compliment to Paul Graham to suggest that maybe he is just like Kenny G, and the problem is that people don't appreciate Kenny G enough.
I'm sure some people hate Kenny G because it's fashionable, but a lot of people hate Kenny G because they hate him, and either way: people fucking hate him.
I'm only in this leg of the thread because I think it's super funny that somebody compared Graham to Kenny G and it had the predictable result of a bloom of rhetorical hyphae about how actually Kenny G is probably good.
Late edit
I am obligated, against my own rhetorical interests, to acknowledge that Kenny G is beloved by many in the country of Israel for introducing to them to concept of unlimited free soda refills, which he did through his unsuccessful attempt to open a fried chicken franchise there.
I'm sure some people hate Kenny G because it's fashionable, but a lot of people hate Kenny G because they hate him, and either way: people fucking hate him.
I'm only in this leg of the thread because I think it's super funny that somebody compared Graham to Kenny G and it had the predictable result of a bloom of rhetorical hyphae about how actually Kenny G is probably good.
Late edit
I am obligated, against my own rhetorical interests, to acknowledge that Kenny G is beloved by many in the country of Israel for introducing to them to concept of unlimited free soda refills, which he did through his unsuccessful attempt to open a fried chicken franchise there.
> It seems like it's not exactly a compliment to Paul Graham to suggest that maybe he is just like Kenny G […]
Pardon the allegory, but that’s a shadow on the cave wall.
> …predictable result of a bloom of rhetorical hyphae about how actually Kenny G is probably good…
That isn’t present in the conversation; I think you may have misread one of the comments.
If you’re going to say that it’s good or bad to imitate Paul Graham’s style, then by all means, do so, but it would serve you well to provide some kind of reasoning or rationale for the advice. (To be clear, general “you” here, not you, specifically.) You can equally advise saxophonists to try sounding like Kenny G or avoid sounding like Kenny G, again, without any reasoning or rationale for it, but I think we can do better.
There’s something kind of banal about this taste-making in the first place. It’s much easier to find reasons to say that something is bad. It gives you a much more defensible position, which is why people find it easy to hate Kenny G. Saying you like something would expose you too much to criticism.
For whatever reason, some people decided that it’s cool to hate Kenny G, and nowadays you see people dropping Kenny G’s name into the conversation as an example of something you want to hate, by people who have no particular reason to hate Kenny G. Whether Kenny G is actually good or bad was never relevant, because the only relevant fact is that it’s cool to think that Kenny G is bad.
Pardon the allegory, but that’s a shadow on the cave wall.
> …predictable result of a bloom of rhetorical hyphae about how actually Kenny G is probably good…
That isn’t present in the conversation; I think you may have misread one of the comments.
If you’re going to say that it’s good or bad to imitate Paul Graham’s style, then by all means, do so, but it would serve you well to provide some kind of reasoning or rationale for the advice. (To be clear, general “you” here, not you, specifically.) You can equally advise saxophonists to try sounding like Kenny G or avoid sounding like Kenny G, again, without any reasoning or rationale for it, but I think we can do better.
There’s something kind of banal about this taste-making in the first place. It’s much easier to find reasons to say that something is bad. It gives you a much more defensible position, which is why people find it easy to hate Kenny G. Saying you like something would expose you too much to criticism.
For whatever reason, some people decided that it’s cool to hate Kenny G, and nowadays you see people dropping Kenny G’s name into the conversation as an example of something you want to hate, by people who have no particular reason to hate Kenny G. Whether Kenny G is actually good or bad was never relevant, because the only relevant fact is that it’s cool to think that Kenny G is bad.
I don't totally agree with 'idlewords about Paul Graham's writing, which I find generally effective (especially when he's writing about programming), if dry and often distractingly conclusory. But I think it is in fact a good rule of thumb that if you yourself want to write effectively, it's best to avoid off-putting styles.
So one point to make here is: it doesn't matter why people hate Kenny G. They hate Kenny G. That's indisputable. So: unless the reason you're playing music is to make a statement about smooth jazz, it's best to avoid sounding like Kenny G.
If you want to write as effectively as Paul Graham, it helps a lot to have started one of the industry's most important investment firms, based on no previous experience in finance, and then to write a long string of posts about startups, startup financing, and startup engineering. People accept a lot of "it turns out that" from Graham because he's a credible authority on some of the topics he writes about. If that's not you, people are more likely to laugh at your "it turns outs". I'm sure there's an analogy we can draw to Kenny G there somewhere, too.
So one point to make here is: it doesn't matter why people hate Kenny G. They hate Kenny G. That's indisputable. So: unless the reason you're playing music is to make a statement about smooth jazz, it's best to avoid sounding like Kenny G.
If you want to write as effectively as Paul Graham, it helps a lot to have started one of the industry's most important investment firms, based on no previous experience in finance, and then to write a long string of posts about startups, startup financing, and startup engineering. People accept a lot of "it turns out that" from Graham because he's a credible authority on some of the topics he writes about. If that's not you, people are more likely to laugh at your "it turns outs". I'm sure there's an analogy we can draw to Kenny G there somewhere, too.
The advice to sound unlike Kenny G is equally unjustified as the advice to sound unlike Paul Graham.
Most people who dislike Kenny G have opinions which aren't informed by the way that Kenny G plays the saxophone in the first place, that's the whole problem.
Most people who dislike Kenny G have opinions which aren't informed by the way that Kenny G plays the saxophone in the first place, that's the whole problem.
What did Kenny G say when he got into the elevator?
"This place rocks!"
"This place rocks!"
Just because he didn't humor your cross-examination with a 3 paragraph response doesn't mean that there's no substance behind what he's saying. If you want to learn things from people, a good starting place is not framing your questions with a bunch of sentences about how they're probably wrong.
Idlewords is a better model of good writing than Paul Graham. Maciej might be bloody annoying at times, but I find his writing far more interesting than Graham's, both in its topics and its style.
I mean, if you're looking for a long-form takedown, Maciej already wrote "Dabblers and Blowhards" nearly two decades ago.
https://idlewords.com/2005/04/dabblers_and_blowhards.htm
https://idlewords.com/2005/04/dabblers_and_blowhards.htm
Reasons are a dime a dozen. A good immediate gut feeling is priceless...
Kenny G follows the rules of his chosen musical style. And knows when to break them.
Writers should do the same.
Writers should do the same.
If you've published any writing advice, I'd be interested to take a look at it.
Thank you, but I feel completely unqualified to give it. The Zinsser book I mention above really taught me a lot, even though I approached it with deep skepticism. Maybe you'll find it rewarding too.
Horse shit. That excuse works for me but does not get you off the hook.
(I liked Style: Towards Clarity & Grace a lot; it's like "Effective C Programming" but for writing, and is a Richard Gabriel recommendation. But, uh, you can see what it did for my writing.)
(I liked Style: Towards Clarity & Grace a lot; it's like "Effective C Programming" but for writing, and is a Richard Gabriel recommendation. But, uh, you can see what it did for my writing.)
[deleted]
Thanks. I like On Writing Well, too.
Can you expand on that last advice?
You know how when you hear a Dave Matthews song, you know instantly that it's him, and also that you're not going to hear anything interesting? Don't write like that. If you start noticing you have a style, cut those bits out.
#5 is something I wish tech and educated people in general embraced more in regular everyday discourse, not just writing:
> 5. Never use a foreign phrase, a scientific word, or a jargon word if you can think of an everyday English equivalent.
Feynman often complained of jargon. Part of what made him such an excellent communicator/educator was his conscious avoidance of specialized terminology.
Too many abuse it as a secret handshake or low-effort superiority signaling at the expense of inclusion. As if those who don't know a few exotic words have nothing to contribute. The easiest way to prevent someone from engaging in a discussion (and thus unable to debate or challenge your ideas) is to use an unfamiliar language.
Be wary of overusers of jargon, there's a good chance they don't even know the meaning of the words.
> 5. Never use a foreign phrase, a scientific word, or a jargon word if you can think of an everyday English equivalent.
Feynman often complained of jargon. Part of what made him such an excellent communicator/educator was his conscious avoidance of specialized terminology.
Too many abuse it as a secret handshake or low-effort superiority signaling at the expense of inclusion. As if those who don't know a few exotic words have nothing to contribute. The easiest way to prevent someone from engaging in a discussion (and thus unable to debate or challenge your ideas) is to use an unfamiliar language.
Be wary of overusers of jargon, there's a good chance they don't even know the meaning of the words.
I think we should probably take a Deep Dive into this supposed extraenous use of "Jargon" you are speaking of - can we setup a quick Touch Base? My schedule is fairly wide open but if your team does not have the Bandwith then we can FlexTrekWhipSnake our calendar availability.
One of the best non-comp sci courses I ever took was Business Communications. It taught me how to write clearly and to focus on essentials. The instructor was especially allergic to cliches, which is Orwell’s rule #1.
Writing for communication is an underrated skill and probably ranks up there with programming language/framework competence, career-wise. It’s crazy how many people fail to make their points concisely and comprehensively.
Writing for communication is an underrated skill and probably ranks up there with programming language/framework competence, career-wise. It’s crazy how many people fail to make their points concisely and comprehensively.
> It’s crazy how many people fail to make their points concisely and comprehensively.
Is it? You said yourself you took a course. Is it crazy how many people can't file annual tax returns for a company or build an intricate cabinet or mend an engine?
Is it? You said yourself you took a course. Is it crazy how many people can't file annual tax returns for a company or build an intricate cabinet or mend an engine?
It's crazy that people are expected to file their own tax returns.
Building an intricate cabinet is more a matter of physical skill and ability.
Mending an engine is trivially easy and anyone functionally literate enough to read the workshop manual could do it.
Building an intricate cabinet is more a matter of physical skill and ability.
Mending an engine is trivially easy and anyone functionally literate enough to read the workshop manual could do it.
Good point. Maybe corporations could benefit from offering similar communications courses to employees, in the same way they offer eg mandatory security training and so forth.
If you want an actual guide for how to write well, rather than just six rules, get a copy of Style: Lessons in Clarity and Grace. Old editions are still good. This book goes in depth, and covers a lot more than the six rules Orwell gave. It includes examples of how real writing samples can be improved. Highly recommended book. Much better than that Strunk & White book.
I will second the Style recommendation. It explains how to write elegant sentences, whereas Strunk and White is just a list of the writers' prejudices. I'd also recommend Artful Sentences: Syntax as Style by Virginia Tufte (who was Edward Tufte's mother).
Thanks for the recommendation! I took precisely two useful things from Strunk & White ("avoid structuring a sentence so that two associated words or concepts are far apart - re-order so that they are close together" and "where possible, replace negations with standalone terms - 'short' instead of 'not tall'"), the rest was disappointing. The section on email made it clear how out-of-touch they were!
Style has the same advice about structuring sentences so that associated words are close, and it comes with exercises and examples of how to achieve this in practice.
Amusingly, the Orwell piece itself mentions a particularly stupid sub-species of the "not X"; namely, the "not un-X" (e.g. "not untall" instead of just "tall"). In a footnote he says:
"One can cure oneself of the not un- formation by memorizing this sentence: A not unblack dog was chasing a not unsmall rabbit across a not ungreen field."
"One can cure oneself of the not un- formation by memorizing this sentence: A not unblack dog was chasing a not unsmall rabbit across a not ungreen field."
$49.99 — TO RENT! https://www.amazon.com/Style-Lessons-Clarity-Grace-RENTAL-dp...
Or you can read it for free from Internet Archive: https://archive.org/search?query=creator%3A%22Williams%2C+Jo...
Grab an older version. That’s the 13th edition. Used copies of older editions can be had for closer to $10.
Indeed. $6.99 here: https://www.thriftbooks.com/w/style-ten-lessons-in-clarity-a...
As someone who dabbles in writing popular fiction, I follow 2,3,4 pretty religiously. Cut, simplify, active. Also avoiding adjectives and always try to "show don't tell". The rest...not so releavant for me. I guess I do 1 intuitively and "avoid clichees" but I'm not big on metaphors anyways as I write thrillers and try to avoid metaphors in general. I always cringe when I read gems like "he was dangling off the cliff like a sausage on a meethook".
Honestly, I usually don't even care about the sentence level. Figure out overall structure, braindump and get things done, optimize. It's sort of similar to (my) programming now that I think about it. Build MVP, worry about details later. The better you are, the less details you have to worry about because you do things right intuitively.
In talking to other people who write, I have learned that there are very different approaches. I'm a high level first kind of person and will obsess over structure and plot out everything before writing a single word. Others will just write and go with the flow, some are very pendantic and cannot continue until sentences or paragraphs are perfect, I mostly muddle along to fill the structure skeleton with some meat and then finetune after the first pass.
Honestly, I usually don't even care about the sentence level. Figure out overall structure, braindump and get things done, optimize. It's sort of similar to (my) programming now that I think about it. Build MVP, worry about details later. The better you are, the less details you have to worry about because you do things right intuitively.
In talking to other people who write, I have learned that there are very different approaches. I'm a high level first kind of person and will obsess over structure and plot out everything before writing a single word. Others will just write and go with the flow, some are very pendantic and cannot continue until sentences or paragraphs are perfect, I mostly muddle along to fill the structure skeleton with some meat and then finetune after the first pass.
> If it is possible to cut a word out, always cut it out.
Shouldn't that just be:
> If it is possible to cut a word out, cut it out.
Shouldn't that just be:
> If it is possible to cut a word out, cut it out.
The word "always" may have lost its significance to us. Maybe it carried more meaning to writers who were only familiar with natural languages, not programming languages.
First rule of style guides: they always break their own rules.
"Omit needless words", from Strunk & White.
>word out, cut it out.
That rendering sounds like he's saying, "Hey, cut it out!" In other words, stop: don't do it! ;)
That rendering sounds like he's saying, "Hey, cut it out!" In other words, stop: don't do it! ;)
That was my first thought - well, actually it was "If it is possible to cut a word, do so" ;)
If you are going to take it that far then it could simply read:
If it is possible to cut a word out, cut it.
Or perhaps:
Is it possible to cut out a word? Cut.
If it is possible to cut a word out, cut it.
Or perhaps:
Is it possible to cut out a word? Cut.
I’ve seen a version of this list with “Never use a short word where a diminuitive one will suffice”.
I dunno, the second one seems pretty barbarous to me...
[deleted]
Or
> If possible, cut words out
> If possible, cut words out
There are OSS linux cli tools and npm packages that do the same thing but I find myself using this web app often.
It has a pleasant interface and making all the errors go away usually results in clear writing.
https://hemingwayapp.com/
It has a pleasant interface and making all the errors go away usually results in clear writing.
https://hemingwayapp.com/
Of course, the fun thing to do with the Hemingway.app is to paste in some of Hemingway's own writing and see how it fairs. I just pasted in the opening few paragraphs of "The Old Man and The Sea" --which is generally recognised as one of his most "simplified" in writing style and got the following resutls:
2 uses of passive voice, meeting the goal of 2 or fewer.
0 phrases have simpler alternatives.
3 of 11 sentences are hard to read.
2 of 11 sentences are very hard to read.
In general I agree with you about Hemingway. But it tends to focus on clarity of individual sentences without thinking about the document as a whole. In the wrong hands, it encourages monotony.
(Reposts are fine after a year so but there was a major thread already this year, so the OP counts as a dupe.)
Related:
Politics and the English Language (1946) - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34277254 - Jan 2023 (41 comments)
Politics and the English Language (1946) - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27067007 - May 2021 (20 comments)
Politics and the English Language (George Orwell, 1946) - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24828499 - Oct 2020 (1 comment)
George Orwell on Writing and the 4 Questions Great Writers Must Ask Themselves - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21712057 - Dec 2019 (1 comment)
George Orwell – Politics and the English Language (1946) - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13538496 - Feb 2017 (21 comments)
George Orwell: Politics and the English Language - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12327324 - Aug 2016 (1 comment)
George Orwell, “Politics and the English Language” (1946) - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12271030 - Aug 2016 (150 comments)
George Orwell, “Politics and the English Language” (1946) - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10452900 - Oct 2015 (2 comments)
George Orwell: Politics and the English Language (1946) - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6643231 - Oct 2013 (62 comments)
“Politics and the English Language,” By George Orwell - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6277405 - Aug 2013 (2 comments)
Politics and the English Language [1945] - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3752825 - March 2012 (13 comments)
George Orwell, "Politics and the English Language" 1946 - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2079477 - Jan 2011 (1 comment)
George Orwell - Politics and the English Language - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=997940 - Dec 2009 (14 comments)
Orwell: Politics and the English Language - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=636287 - June 2009 (14 comments)
Orwell Essay: Politics And The English Language - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=272211 - Aug 2008 (11 comments)
Politics and the English Language - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=115519 - Feb 2008 (5 comments)
Related:
Politics and the English Language (1946) - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34277254 - Jan 2023 (41 comments)
Politics and the English Language (1946) - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27067007 - May 2021 (20 comments)
Politics and the English Language (George Orwell, 1946) - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24828499 - Oct 2020 (1 comment)
George Orwell on Writing and the 4 Questions Great Writers Must Ask Themselves - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21712057 - Dec 2019 (1 comment)
George Orwell – Politics and the English Language (1946) - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13538496 - Feb 2017 (21 comments)
George Orwell: Politics and the English Language - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12327324 - Aug 2016 (1 comment)
George Orwell, “Politics and the English Language” (1946) - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12271030 - Aug 2016 (150 comments)
George Orwell, “Politics and the English Language” (1946) - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10452900 - Oct 2015 (2 comments)
George Orwell: Politics and the English Language (1946) - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6643231 - Oct 2013 (62 comments)
“Politics and the English Language,” By George Orwell - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6277405 - Aug 2013 (2 comments)
Politics and the English Language [1945] - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3752825 - March 2012 (13 comments)
George Orwell, "Politics and the English Language" 1946 - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2079477 - Jan 2011 (1 comment)
George Orwell - Politics and the English Language - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=997940 - Dec 2009 (14 comments)
Orwell: Politics and the English Language - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=636287 - June 2009 (14 comments)
Orwell Essay: Politics And The English Language - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=272211 - Aug 2008 (11 comments)
Politics and the English Language - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=115519 - Feb 2008 (5 comments)
[deleted]
This list had a big effect on me. Especially #1. I’m still waiting to deploy “The cat’s out of the hat” one day.
Apparently those are called “eggcorns.” I learned that from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33756402 (thanks to HN user InGoodFaith).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eggcorn
Apparently those are called “eggcorns.” I learned that from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33756402 (thanks to HN user InGoodFaith).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eggcorn
Love this and I had no idea it had a name
My personal contribution:
You know what they say - the cookie doesn't crumble far from the apple tree! *laughs*
My personal contribution:
You know what they say - the cookie doesn't crumble far from the apple tree! *laughs*
I think Orwell's fame is totally unrelated to these 6 rules — 5 rules, since the last one is just a warning that rules about style should not be absolute.
Why is 1984 so acclaimed? Its style is boring and unimaginative. The characters' psychology is exaggerated and totally unbelievable (I remember the scene in the cinema at the beginning at the book, and, at the end of the book, the absurd post-torture behaviour). A large part of the story was ripped off Zamyatin. Some parts of the story are okay, but other parts are ridiculous... When I read that the nice old librarian was in fact the young chief of the counter-intelligence service, disguised in order to catch dissidents, I burst out laughing: imagine Beria tailing dissidents in the street, or Edgar Hoover disguised as a plumber to install illegal wire-tapes!
Orwell's crude style and stories are perfectly fine for a grotesque parody like Animal Farm. But I can't think of 1984 as a good book, not even close. I suppose it was successful because propaganda likes crude style and stupid stories, and 1984 was largely seen as a propaganda tool.
Why is 1984 so acclaimed? Its style is boring and unimaginative. The characters' psychology is exaggerated and totally unbelievable (I remember the scene in the cinema at the beginning at the book, and, at the end of the book, the absurd post-torture behaviour). A large part of the story was ripped off Zamyatin. Some parts of the story are okay, but other parts are ridiculous... When I read that the nice old librarian was in fact the young chief of the counter-intelligence service, disguised in order to catch dissidents, I burst out laughing: imagine Beria tailing dissidents in the street, or Edgar Hoover disguised as a plumber to install illegal wire-tapes!
Orwell's crude style and stories are perfectly fine for a grotesque parody like Animal Farm. But I can't think of 1984 as a good book, not even close. I suppose it was successful because propaganda likes crude style and stupid stories, and 1984 was largely seen as a propaganda tool.
I think what you mean here is that 1984 is not prosaic - the diction Orwell has used is intentionally crude like you say. If someone ever writes a new age dystopian novel that is similar I would personally love it if the wakeup phrase (or whatever you call it) for the indoctrinated masses is simply:
Prose are Powerful.
The original essay includes as an example of bad writing the phrase "the fascist octopus has sung its swan song". Political writing tends to be infested with this kind of stuff, especially among Marxists and other populists. Orwell was somewhat unusual in being passionately left wing while not willing to overlook stupidity from people nominally on his "side".
I will also recommend https://people.ischool.berkeley.edu/~pam/papers/goodwriting.... (Samuelson 1984); her six rules are
Have a Point
Get to the Point
Adopt a Structure For Your Analysis That Will Allow You to Integrate [relevant items]
Adopt a Measured Tone
Be Concrete and Simplify Whenever Possible
I will also recommend https://people.ischool.berkeley.edu/~pam/papers/goodwriting.... (Samuelson 1984); her six rules are
Have a Point
Get to the Point
Adopt a Structure For Your Analysis That Will Allow You to Integrate [relevant items]
Adopt a Measured Tone
Be Concrete and Simplify Whenever Possible
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 possible 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
I wish all this was true. All it shows is what worked for Orwell. We will never know about the countless authors who imitated this style and failed. My experience has shown there are no canonical writing tips or advice. What works for one author or instance will fail when applied differently. There are too many variables for writing success or failure to be distilled to some rules.
Never use 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.
Never use a foreign phrase, a scientific word, or a jargon word if you can think of an everyday English
I wish all this was true. All it shows is what worked for Orwell. We will never know about the countless authors who imitated this style and failed. My experience has shown there are no canonical writing tips or advice. What works for one author or instance will fail when applied differently. There are too many variables for writing success or failure to be distilled to some rules.
This is very similar to Hemingway's advice on writing, with similar justifications.
somewhat OT, but ernest hemingway (or "serious constrictor paths" as pk dick would have it) and orwell met in paris right after the end of the war, when both were newspaper correspondents. i can't find the source, but the dialog went something like this:
orwell: knocks on hemingways door
hemingway: opens door - "who the hell are you?"
orwell: eric blair (real name)
hemingway: so f*cking what?
orwell: oh, i'm also george orwell
hemingway: why the f*ck didn't you say so! come in, and have some whiskey!
seems to have shown old ernest in a better light than i have often seen him.
orwell: knocks on hemingways door
hemingway: opens door - "who the hell are you?"
orwell: eric blair (real name)
hemingway: so f*cking what?
orwell: oh, i'm also george orwell
hemingway: why the f*ck didn't you say so! come in, and have some whiskey!
seems to have shown old ernest in a better light than i have often seen him.
actually i think it was "serious constricting path"
anyway, it is from "galactic pot healer" where people put words through something like google translate and then back again as a game. this was of course way, way back before the web or pcs. the book is both very funny and very sad.
anyway, it is from "galactic pot healer" where people put words through something like google translate and then back again as a game. this was of course way, way back before the web or pcs. the book is both very funny and very sad.
If you like reading writing advice, Stephen King has a good book, On Writing: A Memoir of the Craft. It's a quick read and is full of good advice told through his past works.
Thanks for your recommendation. Stephen King's On Writing is itself enjoyable to read. I have read it cover to cover more than once.
He says he first realized that writing could be learned and taught when he was young. His first boss, a newspaper editor, made annotations on King's draft of an article with red ink. Mind blown. Why doesn't everyone teach writing this way?
He says he first realized that writing could be learned and taught when he was young. His first boss, a newspaper editor, made annotations on King's draft of an article with red ink. Mind blown. Why doesn't everyone teach writing this way?
I got annotations on my writing assignments in red ink often, starting in 5th grade or so, all the way through the last writing class I took in college. Or green ink, in one class where the teacher thought that the color red provoked negative reactions. I thought it was a common way to teach writing.
King’s “writing is telepathy” passages were a lightbulb moment for me.
https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/7737518-look--here-s-a-tabl...
https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/7737518-look--here-s-a-tabl...
Rules 2-6 are excellent for beginning writers, and I think neatly summarise how to make your writing concise and understandable. Rule 1 is about giving your writing flavour, and is way harder, even for experienced writers. Rule 1 is really what separates expert writers from novices.
Christopher Hitchens wrote a book on Orwell and spoke at length about his rules for writing on many occasions. You can also see the rules being applied in his written and verbal work.
Christopher Hitchens wrote a book on Orwell and spoke at length about his rules for writing on many occasions. You can also see the rules being applied in his written and verbal work.
I was taught Rule 1 as well, as a beginning writer, in 11th grade (age 16). It was worded as "don't use cliches."
I had never read Orwell's six rules before (I have no idea how I missed them), but in the various writing classes I've taken over the years, all six commonly appeared. I just didn't know they came from Orwell!
I like Betrand Russell, quoting his brother-in-law
He gave me various simple rules, of which I remember only two: “Put a comma every four words,” and “never use ‘and’ except at the beginning of a sentence.”
The original ("Politics and the English Language") is not terribly long and well worth a read.
https://deathray.us/ebooks/orwell_politics.html
https://deathray.us/ebooks/orwell_politics.html
[deleted]
>> 4. Never use the passive where you can use the active.
Although, in contemporary scientific writing, passive is used and in some areas preferred.
Although, in contemporary scientific writing, passive is used and in some areas preferred.
Passive voice: it's a tool[0]. And in some scenarios, more preferable to active (as you correctly mentioned). Not only does it depend on genre (e.g. scientific writing), but on the writer's intent and how they want the reader to interpret the text.
It boils down to who's the subject/agent of the story, what you are trying to convey, and what you are trying to "stress" or emphasize. You, as the writer, get to control 1) who's story it is and 2) what should be emphasized.
For example:
- I wrote this software program - This software program was written by me
It would be silly to say that sentence one is better because its written in the active voice. What we need is context. If we want to tell a story through the lens of the software program itself and emphasize it being written by me (i.e. "I"), then I would argue the second sentence does a better job. Passive wins. In contrast, if we want to write a story about the perspective from me (i.e. "I") and emphasize the software program (which is in the "stress" position), then then the first sentence takes the cake. Active wins.
[0]: https://georgegopen.net/wp-content/uploads/2019/12/Why-the-P...
It boils down to who's the subject/agent of the story, what you are trying to convey, and what you are trying to "stress" or emphasize. You, as the writer, get to control 1) who's story it is and 2) what should be emphasized.
For example:
- I wrote this software program - This software program was written by me
It would be silly to say that sentence one is better because its written in the active voice. What we need is context. If we want to tell a story through the lens of the software program itself and emphasize it being written by me (i.e. "I"), then I would argue the second sentence does a better job. Passive wins. In contrast, if we want to write a story about the perspective from me (i.e. "I") and emphasize the software program (which is in the "stress" position), then then the first sentence takes the cake. Active wins.
[0]: https://georgegopen.net/wp-content/uploads/2019/12/Why-the-P...
The best and most memorable advice I've seen on this, unfortunately more memorable than the name of the author:
Entomologists write "bees carry pollen". Botanists write "pollen is carried by bees".
Entomologists write "bees carry pollen". Botanists write "pollen is carried by bees".
In case it isn’t obvious, the lesson here is that passive voice can be used to place the important thing first in a sentence.
If we refer to scientific writing as journal articles or conferences, it is just a matter of tradition and a certain gusto for science as an "objective" enterprise.
Years ago, during my PhD, one of the professors working in my department referred to a colleague as a "research monk." As I saw it, he was just a person who didn't take care of his hair.
"Linear regression models were fit by first checking the normality of residuals" for some old-timers sounds better than "we fit linear regression by first checking the normality of residuals." But what is the difference between the two sentences? In the first case, it may sound like you, me and someone else's cousin would have gotten the same results; in the second, that we did those analyses and got those results. If others were to perform the analyses, who knows what would happen. But it is just an impression, isn't it?
"Linear regression models were fit by first checking the normality of residuals" for some old-timers sounds better than "we fit linear regression by first checking the normality of residuals." But what is the difference between the two sentences? In the first case, it may sound like you, me and someone else's cousin would have gotten the same results; in the second, that we did those analyses and got those results. If others were to perform the analyses, who knows what would happen. But it is just an impression, isn't it?
I would argue it depends on what the paragraph is about. If the paragraph is about the regression models, I would argue every sentence's subject should be "regression models" using passive voice. If the paragraph discusses how the research was conducted, then every sentence's subject should be "we" with active voice.
The sentence is about fitting regression models, not what regression models are, which implies a choice was made. Therefore, the active voice should be preferred, even if the sentence is unambiguous in either case.
I prefer the active voice to the passive voice, although, especially in solo papers, repeatedly writing "I did," "I carried out," "I tested," sounds a bit vain after a while.
As author and teacher of good writing Giuseppe Pontiggia said, to be a good writer you need to develop a good ear for words and sentences.
I prefer the active voice to the passive voice, although, especially in solo papers, repeatedly writing "I did," "I carried out," "I tested," sounds a bit vain after a while.
As author and teacher of good writing Giuseppe Pontiggia said, to be a good writer you need to develop a good ear for words and sentences.
Sure. If the paragraph is discussing how the research and models were performed/fitted, then use "we" as the subject with active voice.
Whether that is for the best, however, is another matter. Some topics would be much clearer if the authors didn't ardently adhere to maintaining a passive voice.
And this makes contemporary scientific writing hellish to read
Or should I say contemporary scientific writing is made hellish to read by this…
Or should I say contemporary scientific writing is made hellish to read by this…
Avoid adjectives by specifying verbs. Possibly conflicting with Orwell's rule 2 and 5.
Not really. The short word won't do if you need the adverb/adjective is required for the short one.
I will say that advice is dangerous to some degree because using things like contrasting adjectives/adverbs can be an effective way to surprise the reader. But anytime you can just use a better verb/noun you probably should.
I will say that advice is dangerous to some degree because using things like contrasting adjectives/adverbs can be an effective way to surprise the reader. But anytime you can just use a better verb/noun you probably should.
These rules, like all writing rules, are "meant to be broken".
If you're a beginning writer, following them is a great idea. In part because you can't go too wrong with them, even if there are situations where breaking them is better. They are really expressions of deeper truths about the art. Even the greatest rule-breakers of great authors follow them more often than not.
An inexperienced writer should follow them until they understand the deeper truth behind them. Once you know why the rule was worth stating, you know when the rule should not be applied.
If you're a beginning writer, following them is a great idea. In part because you can't go too wrong with them, even if there are situations where breaking them is better. They are really expressions of deeper truths about the art. Even the greatest rule-breakers of great authors follow them more often than not.
An inexperienced writer should follow them until they understand the deeper truth behind them. Once you know why the rule was worth stating, you know when the rule should not be applied.
an example please?
"The car crashed into the wall" vs "The car quickly sped into the wall"?
Crashed means you don't need to specify it was quick?
Crashed means you don't need to specify it was quick?
That's one of the examples that could help you spot non-native speakers (me included).
I would regularly say: "I ran home as fast as possible", while a native speaker would just use: "I rushed home".
On the second reading, my first sentence may read: "That's one of the examples that give out non-native speakers".
I would regularly say: "I ran home as fast as possible", while a native speaker would just use: "I rushed home".
On the second reading, my first sentence may read: "That's one of the examples that give out non-native speakers".
i would say simply "i ran home." if what you want to indicate is running using your legs. "rushed" could mean all sorts of things, but might also be good.
Off topic but perhaps not completely since we're discussing clear written expression: "died in an car accident" is the default rendering of such an event in news reports, yet "died in a car crash" is more accurate. What makes a crash an "accident" by default? I have long believed this is powerful manipulation by the car and oil industries to lesson the impact — as it were — of the word "crash."
I think it's more the legal notion of intent that separates manslaughter versus murder. I would venture to say most car crashes that aren't attacks are not intentional, therefore they are accidental. Also if you experience a fatal accident in a car, it's likely enough to be a crash - so I would also venture to say most people understand "car accident" to strongly imply "crash".
Ah, therein lies the rub: implying something softens the unconscious blow. Much science underlies meaning.
[deleted]
Good rules. In this age, apps like Grammarly, Wordtune or ChatGPT already use these rules to refine your writing.
It's definitely helpful to practice these rules, unless you don't have access to these tools.
It's definitely helpful to practice these rules, unless you don't have access to these tools.
George Orwell's books are the best. I especially loved Animal Farm.
Definitely one of the greats. Among his less famous books, The Road to Wigan Pier stood out to me. Part one truly opened my eyes to what humans are capable of despite the most extreme conditions.
"Coming Up for Air" is another of his lesser known works, which is worth a read.
[deleted]
rule 7: never use an analogy - it will always be wrong, particularly in tech articles; instead of saying X is a bit like Y (which it never is), explain X properly. if you can't do that, don't write about X.
analogies drive me mad. i don't mind metaphor so much.
analogies drive me mad. i don't mind metaphor so much.
analogies are like CPUs, some people think they're the entire computer and not just a component.
You can break all of these rules for specific stylistic reasons. Eg, deliberately using a familiar metaphor or simile to evoke the attitude of those who say it. Or to convey that a character is unoriginal via dialogue.
Or maybe you use a long or extraneous word because it fits the rhythm better, which matters a lot for highly stylized works. Don Delilo changed his words for the sake of syllable rhythm a lot, his prose is incredible. Netflix just made a movie based on his book, White Noise actually which was a fun watch
The passive voice can be useful to convey things about a speaker or narrator, or even a place, or to evoke a classical feeling because the style you are using is an old one
6 is a fully trustworthy rule however.
This is just off the top of my head. I wrote articles about these things sometimes [1]
[1] https://barbariangrunge.substack.com/