By Ashley Lister
It’s a common mantra within the writing community that we don’t write: we rewrite.
This investment in revision is supported by Hemingway who is meant to have said, “The first draft of everything is shit.” Of course, Hemingway died in 1961 so he never got a chance to read any of my first drafts, which are far from shit, but I understand a lot of people put credence in Hemingway so I won’t dismiss his opinions here.
The need to rewrite is important. Few first drafts reach the giddy heights of what we wanted to do with our work and revision helps us to achieve our goals by producing a more accessible text. However, rather than look at Hemingway’s reductive (and scatological) observations, I find more value in considering George Orwell’s guidance from his essay ‘Politics and the English Language’.
The essay itself is available on the internet and remains relevant and readable, even though it was written more than 70 years ago. It includes many valuable nuggets of wisdom and concludes with six rules that, for writers, are well worth living by. I’ve reiterated them here and I’m going to go through them in a little more detail below.
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.
*
1.Never use a metaphor, simile, or other figure of speech which you are used to seeing in print.
This makes perfect sense as an editing rule. Readers don’t want to be revisiting tired phrases such as ‘she was as pretty as a picture’ or ‘he was working like a dog’. These are phrases with which we are so familiar that we don’t bother considering their content and simply come away from them think ‘she’s pretty’ and ‘he’s hard working’. Victor Shklovsky, in his essay ‘Art as Technique’, discussed the notion of defamiliarisation, suggesting that our readers can see things more clearly when they’re given an original description. Consequently, if we use alternative phrases such as ‘she’s as attractive as a tax refund’ or ‘he’s concentrating harder than a bomb disposal technician with shaky hands’, then our readers are seeing the world from a fresh perspective.
2.Never use a long word where a short one will do.
In an episode of Friends, Joey Tribbiani uses a thesaurus to help him write a recommendation letter for Chandler and Monica. His original phrase, that the couple are “warm, nice, people with big hearts”, has been translated into “they are humid prepossessing Homo Sapiens with full sized aortic pumps.”
This is a perfect example of why our personal vocabulary is usually sufficient for the task of writing, and a cautionary tale about the potential dangers of using a thesaurus to simply make our phrasing look cleverer. As the old joke says: if you use long words without being absolutely sure of what they mean, there’s a danger you might look photosynthesis.
3.If it is possible to cut a word out, always cut it out.
Words like really and very are useless modifiers. You should be able to find stronger verbs or adjectives for whatever you’re trying to enhance.
Similarly, words like totally, completely, absolutely and literally are words that don’t add information to a sentence. For example, “The shelf was completely full of books.” reads the same as, “The shelf was full of books.” or better yet, “The shelf was crammed with books.”
4.Never use the passive where you can use the active.
Passive sentences aren’t incorrect; it’s just that they often aren’t the best way to phrase your thoughts. Sometimes passive voice is awkward and other times it’s vague. Also, passive voice is usually wordy, so you can tighten your writing if you replace passive sentences with active sentence.
5.Never use a foreign phrase, a scientific word, or a jargon word if you can think of an everyday English equivalent.
This is not Orwell saying that foreign phrases, scientific words or jargon are verboten or non licet. It’s simply his observation that the complexity of these words can sometimes be a barrier to clarity. I’d argue that some foreign phrases, scientific words and jargon need to be used: but this is only in cases where there isn’t an English equivalent that has the specificity of meaning I require. Other than that, I try to place a moratorium on vocabulary that might drag readers from the narrative I’m sharing.
6.Break any of these rules sooner than say anything outright barbarous.
As I said at the start of this blog, we don’t write: we rewrite. Personally I find Orwell’s rules are a useful tool to help me when I’m rewriting. I sincerely hope they might be of use to you if you’ve read this far.
Hi Ashley. I’ve been away from writing. Lots of changes. I could no longer afford California – moved back east. I live in the country now, it’s very peaceful.
Hope things are good with you!
Angela
Good to see you on here. Country and peaceful sound ideal. I hope they’re helping to inspire your writing x
Ash
To be honest, I think writing rules often do more harm than good. Novice writers adopt them as gospel, losing the opportunity to exploit the full richness of English.
Present Orwell’s list as guidelines, and I’ll support them wholeheartedly. However, I can think of many circumstances in which a story would be improved by violating these precepts.
If your main character is a bore, he or she might well use a cliched figure of speech.
If your main character is a pedant or a specialist in some technical area, using longer, lower frequency words can help convey that more effectively than simply stating the fact.
I agree that most writing (including mine) can benefit from cutting unnecessary words. However, sometimes an “extra” word plays an important role in shaping the rhythm of a passage.
Passive voice has its place as well. Overusing the passive slows the prose and makes it less energetic, but occasionally that is exactly the desired effect.
Finally, I find a well-chosen foreign or technical word can have far more impact in depicting a setting or delineating a character than many less specific, more familiar words.
The final rule, inviting violation of the others, is too constraining. I would say, “Break any of these rules, if your author’s intuition tells you that this will improve your prose.”
(My curmudgeonly opinion only, of course!)
Lisabet
Sorry it’s taken me so long to respond. I’m getting old 🙂
You’re right that Orwell’s rules should be considered as guidelines. For every rule he provides there is a valid reason for a writer to break it. But I do think they stand up as helpful guidelines to remind writers about existing structures, so they can conform or rebel depending on how they want to write.
With love,
Ash