More of a reflection on Orwell's overall thought than on his understanding of writing. His comments on writing teachers are great. And Orwell's life should bring all of some hope: Even the greatest of writers didn't make any money doing it.
Orwell’s six stylistic rules are worth repeating:
quote:
1. Never use a metaphor, simile or other figure of speech which you are used to seeing in print.
2. Never use a long word where a short one will do.
3. If it is possible to cut a word out, always cut it out.
4. Never use the passive where you can use the active.
5. Never use a foreign phrase, a scientific word or a jargon word if you can think of an everyday English equivalent.
6. Break any of these rules sooner than say anything outright barbarous.
[This message has been edited by Balthasar (edited October 22, 2003).]
#3. Cutting out words. I've tried this. I took one of my short stories and tried cutting out as many words as I could get away with. Then to see if it worked I pushed it on a few people to see which version they preferred. I was a bit surprised when I had a unanimous vote for the original. How could they be right when I was following along with "The book of Style" (I think that’s right) and it said that was the way to do it. But it was not as well liked.
If the story is sparse will it be as good. What is the determining factor for what can be cut? Sometimes that extra descriptive adjective gives the meaning you are looking for, but ultimately the reader is the one who will be the judge.
I can agree with the rest though.
Let me know if I am getting on your nerves yet Balthasar.
Of course, how to implement them in any given situation is up to the author, but these questions should be asked of every sentence to see if it passes muster.
And of course, I think that it is implied in all the rest. It is fine to use a cliche figure of speech, as long as you mean it as a cliche, for instance. If you mean "penicillin" then don't say "aloe". If you mean "the pin has to be reinserted into the handle of the grenade" then don't say "Santa Claus must reinsert the pin."
Orwell, great guy. But he did make a lot of money, he just died before getting a chance to spend it.
That aside, its all sound advice. To the point.
Lord D., no you're not getting on my nerves yet. I happen to have a rather irrational father-in-law, whose comments I've learned to ignore. At any rate, you're not disagreeing with me, you're disagree with Mr. Orwell. Proceed at your own risk.
You have read Orwell, haven't you?
[This message has been edited by Balthasar (edited October 23, 2003).]
quote:
You have read Orwell, haven't you?
quote:
I happen to have a rather irrational father-in-law, whose comments I've learned to ignore.
I used to get upset when people ignored me, but it happens so much at work I have become used to it. I tend to say what I think and rarely concern myself over silly things like other people wanting to here it. Give me some time, I'll figure out how to get on your nerves. 
I think all of his advice is excellent, especially the part about cutting out words.
quote:
I think all of his advice is excellent, especially the part about cutting out words.
I was roaming through OSC's writing lessons and he had something to say about cutting every word possible. I am feeling too lazy today to go find it, but he did disagree with the concept that the only way it can be good is to remove every word possible.
OSC is successfull, and I have enjoyed the majority of his books. Is he wrong?
One of the best examples of cutting needless words is found in Herbert Read's ENGLISH PROSE STYLE, in which Read emendates a passage from Frank T. Bullen.
quote:
Shining serenely as some immeasurable mirror beneath the smiling face of heaven, the solitary ocean lay in unrippled silence. It was in those placid latitudes south of the line in the Pacific, where weeks, aye months, often pass without the meaningless blue level being ruffled by any wandering keel. Here, in almost perfect security from the molestation by man, the innumerable denizens of the deep pursue their never-ending warfare, doubtless enjoying to the full the brimming cup of life, without a weary moment, and with no dreary anticipations of an unwanted old age.
Try to look past the high-brow style that was in vogue in the early 1900s. Read goes about incising the text:
quote:
--"serenely as" is duplicated by "placid"
--"similing" is perhaps permissible, but facetious
--"solitary" is implied in the following sentence
--"unrippled": a mirror is never rippled
--"weeks, aye": nothing is lost by saying simply "months"
--"marginless": not necessary after "immeasurable"
--"in almost perfect security" can be replaced by "almost secure," which is better because it is shorter
--"by man": molestation here implies "by man"
--"denizens of the deep": cliché
--"never-ending": inexact, and therefore unnecessary, and even implied in "without a weary moment"
--"doubtless...cup of life": a presumptuous cliché, irrelevant, if not contradictory to the idea of warfare
--"dreary": prevented by the absence of weary moments.
Mr. Read will say that the entire passage is not very good, but here is the emended version:
quote:
Shining like some immeasurable mirror beneath the face of heaven, the ocean lay in silence. It was in those placid latitudes south of the line in the Pacific, where months often pass without the blue level being ruffled by any wandering keel. Here, almost secure from molestation, the innumerable inhabitants of the sea pursue their warfare without a weary moment and with no anticipations of an unwanted old age.
Not only do you cut the passage from 93 words to 69, the passage, in Mr. Read's words, "gains force, directness, and expressiveness."
I hope this helps.
Maybe that is why I disagree so much about cutting words, I have little to cut.
Strunk and White, the authors of THE ELEMENTS OF STYLE, said it this way: "Omit needless words." You have to decide which ones are needless and which ones are not.
Here's an idea. Why not post, say, three or four descriptions that you think cannot be reduced and let's see what everyone else thinks.
quote:
Why not post, say, three or four descriptions that you think cannot be reduced and let's see what everyone else thinks.
Sounds good. This is the first paragraph of one of my stories. It is a first draft so I haven't had a chance to improve it any. But I figured it would serve to see if it can be reduced and see how.
quote:
Roth walked down Steel Street. The sound of hammers pounding on steel could be heard all around. The smell of the burning coal drifted through the air. Roth enjoyed the smells and sounds on this street. The shiny steal houses, never dingy from the smoke of the forge, were a warm welcome to him. The one place he felt as if he belonged. No one pitied him here, not even his brother.
[This message has been edited by Lord Darkstorm (edited October 23, 2003).]
LDS, you richly deserve whatever scorn can be heaped on your head by all present. Unfortunatly, I can't even think of something scornful enough to say to one who, claiming to be an SF reader, has not read Orwell.
Although I think it's good as it is, there's one thing I noticed. Of the seven sentences, two begin with the characters name and the other four start with 'the'. But the point was to pare it down, so with that in mind, it could be changed to--
Roth walked down Steel Street. Hammers pounding on steel could be heard all around. The aroma of burning coal drifted through the air. He enjoyed the smells and sounds on this street. Shiny steel houses, never dingy from the smoke, were a warm welcome. He felt as if he belonged. No one pitied him here, not even his brother.
Got rid of a few 'the' words, corrected steal, avoided the repetition of 'smell', using aroma instead of odor, since the character enjoys it. A couple other little things too. Could have removed "on this street" since it's already inferred in the 1st sentence, but I left it. I'm sure you could cut it even more, but it's not always necessary to use the very least amount of words to convey a point.
Anyways, not that the first version was bad, that was just what I came up with.
Zixx
As for the changes...I think I am going to work on my grammar some more. 
quote:
Roth walked down Steel Street. The sound of hammers pounding on steel could be heard all around. The smell of the burning coal drifted through the air. Roth enjoyed the smells and sounds on this street. The shiny steal houses, never dingy from the smoke of the forge, were a warm welcome to him. The one place he felt as if he belonged. No one pitied him here, not even his brother.
--"Roth walked down Steel Street." Not much here to change. I would, however, change "down" to "along" to get the rid of the double d's between walked and down.
--"The sound of hammers pounding on steel could be heard all around." This sentence is in the passive voice. I assume that Roth is the one doing the hearing, so let's change it: "He heard hammers pounding on steel." Some might want to cut pounding, but I wouldn't. Rather, I'd change it to a word that signifies what hammers really do sound like on steel. It doesn't sound like a pound, but, rather, more like a clang.
--"The smell of the burning coal drifted through the air." Not in the passive voice, but smelling is something a person does, and since you've established Roth as the POV character in this passage, let's write it that way: "He smelled burning coal."
--"Roth enjoyed the smells and sounds on this street." On this street is redundant.
--"The shiny steal houses, never dingy from the smoke of the forge, were a warm welcome to him." Warm welcome is a cliché as well as a redundancy -- all welcomes are warm. Cut it. Don't make welcome a noun here, make it a verb. And isn't the stuff that comes from a forge that gets things dirty called "soot"? If so, change it.
--"The one place he felt as if he belonged." Cut as if and make it stronger. "The one place he felt he belonged." There's still a problem here -- it's a fragment that seems to be out of place.
--"No one pitied him here, not even his brother." Fine as is.
Our new version is:
quote:
Roth walked along Steel Street. He heard hammers clanging on steel. He smelled burning coal. Roth enjoyed the smells and sounds. The shiny steal houses, never dingy from soot, welcomed him. The one place he felt he belonged. No one pitied him here, not even his brother.
quote:
Roth walked along Steel Street, listening to the hammers clanging on steel, smelling the burning coal. Roth enjoyed the smells and sounds. The shiny steal houses, never dingy from soot, welcomed him. The one place he felt he belonged. No one pitied him here, not even his brother.
). Let's make the next to last sentence a real sentence and cut out the "here" in the last sentence:
quote:
Roth walked along Steel Street, listening to the hammers clanging on steel, smelling the burning coal. The shiny steal houses, never dingy from soot, welcomed him. He felt he belonged here. No one pitied him, not even his brother.
One problem you're going to have to address in this paragraph is the contradiction between belonging and not being pitied. But that's not my job, it's yours. What you need to remember is that these are my edits. I'm not sure you can argue a whole lot with my initial edits, which I tried to keep as basic as possible; I simply tried to make each sentence stronger. The place to disagree with is when I started linking sentences and cutting other sentences.
[This message has been edited by Balthasar (edited October 24, 2003).]
quote:
No one pitied him here, not even his brother.
It implies that there are other places where he's pitied, and that he doesn't like it. The "here" on the end of the previous sentence doesn't necessarily convey that meaning.
[This message has been edited by pickled shuttlecock (edited October 24, 2003).]
Roth walked down Steel Street enjoying the sound of hammers pounding steel, and relishing the drifting smell of burning coal. He felt a warm welcome from the shiny steel houses unsullied by the smoky dinginess of the forge. He belonged here, the one place no one pitied him, not even his brother.
Roth walked down Steel Street to the sounds and smells he enjoyed – hammers pounding steel, and the distinctive smell of burning coal. Shiny steel houses, unsullied by the smoky dinginess of the forge, welcomed him to the one place he belonged, the one place no one pitied him, not even his brother.
quote:
Roth walked down Steel Street to the sounds and smells he enjoyed: hammers pounding steel, and the distinctive smell of burning coal.
Without getting into the actual story (which was not the point) there are some implied meanings that need to remain. As picked shuttlecock pointed out there is other places he does not feel comfortable. Other than that, I will gladly agree that it is much better after the changes.
So I can agree that improving the sentance structure helps greatly. But I don't see it as a removal of needless words, but an improvement of the structure and clarity of the sentances. The examples I have read on "cutting" words did just that. They would take a sentance and cut out a few words that were not neccessary. The changes here improve the sentances while the process ends up with fewer words.
So if your meaning of cutting words implies improving the sentance, I will agree with that.
quote:
So I can agree that improving the sentance structure helps greatly. But I don't see it as a removal of needless words, but an improvement of the structure and clarity of the sentances. The examples I have read on "cutting" words did just that. They would take a sentance and cut out a few words that were not neccessary. The changes here improve the sentances while the process ends up with fewer words.
Exactly. And, as per the subject matter, your comments bear repeating:
Improving sentence structure helps, not simply as a removal of needless words, but as an improvement of the structure and clarity of the sentences. Merely "cutting" words takes a sentence and cuts a few unnecessary words, but structural changes improve the sentence while still resulting in fewer words.
And better flow, I might add.
(And, no, I'm not picking on you, LordD, merely admiring your astuteness while, I hope, driving home your point. )
But again, I'm not sure how the feeling of belong relates to not being pitied, unless Roth doesn't want pity. I am assuming this is going to be explained in the next couple of paragraphs.
quote:
So if your meaning of cutting words implies improving the sentance, I will agree with that.
I'm not sure what else would be meant by cutting words. The classic formula is in THE ELEMENTS OF STYLE by Strunk and White, which states:
quote:
Omit needless words.Vigorous writing is concise. A sentence should contain no unnecessary words, a paragraph no unnecessary sentences, for the same reason that a drawing should have no unnecessary lines and a machine no unnecessary parts. This requires not that the writer make all sentences short, or avoid all detail and treat subjects only in outline, but that every word tell.
I'd put money that was what Orwell meant by Rule 3.
quote:
And, no, I'm not picking on you, LordD, merely admiring your astuteness while, I hope, driving home your point
Just needed it to make sense. Since the examples in The Elements Of Style showed cutting a few words from a sentance. My interpretation was that you look for words that can be removed and remove them. That is a different meaning than writing better sentances. One of the major reasons I disagreed with cutting words was because of my understand of the definition. And my definition was different than everyone elses.
As to my character, he doesn't want the pity, and feels at home where he is because they don't give him any. As for the reasons, that will have to wait until I have more finished. And hopefully I can improve the sentance structure first as well.
[This message has been edited by Lord Darkstorm (edited October 24, 2003).]
"--"The one place he felt as if he belonged." Cut as if and make it stronger. "The one place he felt he belonged." There's still a problem here -- it's a fragment that seems to be out of place."
Balth what if we said
"This is the one place he feels he belongs."
or
"This is the one place he felt as if he belongs"
I agree with pickled on this one. I think "here" takes away the um... what did she say, implied place, but then I read what Balthasar said and I saw it as restating, and it doesn't need to be. So i agree with Balthasar.
and um what bothered me is I believe sentance is supposed to be sentence, am I right LDS? .
I also read about how cliches are a writers worst nightmare. who was it that said that? Zinnsser in "On Writing Well".
Shining serenely as some immeasurable mirror beneath the smiling face of heaven, the solitary ocean lay in unrippled silence. It was in those placid latitudes south of the line in the Pacific, where weeks, aye months, often pass without the meaningless blue level being ruffled by any wandering keel. Here, in almost perfect security from the molestation by man, the innumerable denizens of the deep pursue their never-ending warfare, doubtless enjoying to the full the brimming cup of life, without a weary moment, and with no dreary anticipations of an unwanted old age
My problem with this paragraph is it uses words in a way where one person who wants to try to read, for the first time, is going to feel confused. At least give your reader a little lead way if you ask me.
And cutting to cut is exactly what I learned not to do. Just cut what doesn't need to be there. Such as LDS' revised paragraph.
quote:
and um what bothered me is I believe sentance is supposed to be sentence, am I right LDS?
Yes, I think it has an 'e', but I never claimed I won any spelling contests. Bring on the spell checker.
www.resort.com/~prime8/Orwell/patee.html