George Orwell's list of rules for clear language

A bit late with the call back to topic aren't you? It almost seems like an excuse to use the word insipid...

 

I leave this thread alone for a while and it turns into a Bible discussion? Sheesh. oO

I'm not against teaching people to walk before they can run. I'm merely against teaching people to walk by telling them they are not allowed to run.

You I like.

There are no rules. Writing isn't a contest where you get disqualified for thinking outside the box, or punished for being defiant.

We're writers, so we know that power of words, and "rule" is a very powerful word. What we are talking about are guidelines, advice, handy tips from people who've been at it a while. These are things of direction, of guidance. Calling them rules turns them into things of limitation and conformity. They become barriers that are fearsome to cross.

Besides, writing utter crap never hurt anyone. Be honest and tell them that they wrote poorly, let them know what you didn't like, tell them what they can do to grow as writers. But never try to tell them what they can't do.

 

ppl shud right werds that tell what they are thinking and tell what they want to say and not get bogged DOWN in simple conventions? I THINK THAT PEOPLE SHOULD DOW HATEVER THEY WANT WHEN THEY WRIGHT. Their R know rules . only guide lines ,

any1 hoo thiks diffidends is just being silly.

On a serious note, there are rules for writing. Follow them and succeed. Dismiss them at your own peril. (On occasion, breaking the rules can be better than following them, but if breaking a rule is always better, or nearly always better, than following it, that becomes a rule in and of itself. Either way, follow the rules.)

 

No, they're not. Cogito does have a point and if he believes this I doubt I can change his mind. I just happen to believe in something different, and I have to stand for that.

Anyway, thiksing diffidends should be encouraged.

 

I do think calling them "rules" imposes a bias against them. The only "rules" are those of spelling, punctuation, and grammar, and even some of those are less than ironclad.

Still, there are many guidelines that have developed from the collected experience of writers, editors, and educators. These guidelines have grown from perusing large volumes of good writing, and even greater volumes of horrible writing. The guidelines advise aspiring writers as to what often works, and what almost never works and is best avoided.

A wise man learns from his mistakes. A wiser man learns from the mistakes of others.

 

I agree with Cogito on this. Writing has few "ironclad" rules, even SPAG is mutable in some instances if it produces the desired effect.

But, there are very applicable guidelines that writers can use to help them on their way to developing their own style. This is VERY true for novice writers such as myself, though it still holds weight with even the Hemingways and Poes of our lifetime.

 

I read that essay for a writing skills class. Great piece, very informative.

But I have to, personally, agree with not calling them rules. They are guidelines to me. When I write a paragraph in a non-fiction piece I use the guidelines as if they were almost rules. If I'm writing a piece of fiction I choose when to use them and when not to. I find the mood of the scene helps me decide, as well as the pacing.

There's allot that goes into working with the guidelines and I won't claim to have it down pat. Still, practice makes perfect and I think everyone should experiment. If you come out with genuinely bad witting you'll figure it out yourself, or someone will tell you.

 

cool rules, Mister Orwell sounds very wise, and its ironic that most of his advice has either been suggested to me by peers (including writers on this forum) or by teachers, or discovered on my own.

it goes without saying, and I think the OP and Mister Orwell implied, that these rules, unlike legal rules, are discretionary.

thanks for posting!