Still, as you read this excellent (if somewhat elderly) article, note that I have a few slight disagreements. He begins by offering five examples of bad prose, then follows with this:
Still, as you read this excellent (if somewhat elderly) “Each of these passages has faults of its own, but, quite apart from avoidable ugliness, two qualities are common to all of them. The first is staleness of imagery; the other is lack of precision.”
Huh. What I found objectionable in all five was something else entirely — a clear lack of empathy with the hurried reader.
In each example, the writer seemed to demand that the reader scan his words slowly, carefully and several times, in order to parse a sentence-meaning! When, in fact, that multiple re-read and care is the duty of the writer, not the reader. In each of the five examples, long sentences could have been broken into several, allowing the reader to build comprehension in digestible bites, instead of pedantic lumps.
Yes, Orwell does much better. His subsequent paragraph is well-crafted and easy to read/understand. His points are well-taken and persuasive… and he appears to miss the very trait that his paragraph displays! The trait that marks this article as different from his benighted examples.
Yes, Orwell does much better. His subsequent paragraph is well-crafted and easy to read/understand. His points are well-taken and persuasive… and he appears to miss the very trait that his paragraph displays! The trait that marks this article as different from his benighted examples.Distilling it: Orwell (or any good writer) views the reader as a collaborator in the goal and process of comprehensible communication. You can even skim Orwell and get a gist of his intent, something a bad writer hates and makes deliberately difficult, but that a good writer like Orwell doesn't mind… much.
The writers of those five examples appear to view the reader as an adversary, to be pummeled into submission.
The writers of those five examples appear to view the reader as an adversary, to be pummeled into submission.I agree with Orwell's comment about metaphors… though only as a general warning. In fact, most of the “old” metaphors he mentions are still fine for use in 2015! Just with some care.
The rest is vivid and persuasive. Indeed, I would add several more categories! I used to demand that my students write a story with No Adjectives or Adverbs! To see if they could still create a vivid scene. Then to know that you can add adjectival description like frosting, but you never use it as a crutch.
… then choose to break any rule on a case-by-case basis, for some color here. For a little appropriately pretentious prose there! You learn from his rules good habits. Then - when you have used them to become skilled -- break 'em whenever you see fit!