14 April 2010
Sigh. First Slate, now the Guardian. It seems the newspaper is launching a new blog on style, and they’ve gotten off to a very inauspicious start.
First, it sets as a goal to be like Lynne Truss’s Eats, Shoots & Leaves, quite possibly the worst book on language written in the last fifty years. (Click here for my review of this execrable book. For an even better review, see Louis Menand’s take in the New Yorker.)
Second, it cites Orwell’s essay Politics and the English Language, calling it “brilliant.” Now, Orwell was indeed a brilliant writer, but he was also a horrible analyst and commentator on writing. It cites Orwell’s famous six rules of good writing from the essay, five of which are actually quite poor guides. For one thing, beware any rule that says “never” or “always.” More specifically:
Never use a metaphor, simile or other figure of speech which you are used to seeing in print. Familiar metaphors and cliches are often substitutes for clear thinking, and in this they are to be avoided. But they can also be succinct and powerful means to evoke traditions, ideas, and emotions, and when used properly can make brilliant political speech.
Never use a long word where a short one will do. The key to this is what “will do” means. Clarity and simplicity are often good. But synonyms often have particular connotations, and longer words are often a better semantic, stylistic, or rhetorical fit than shorter ones. Had Orwell substituted “avoid using” for “never use” this rule might have been a good one.
If it is possible to cut a word out, always cut it out. See the above. The problem is “always.” It may be possible to cut a word and still be a bad idea to do so. Relentless trimming can destroy the flow of good prose. “Cut unnecessary verbiage” would be better, and more succinct, guidance. (Note, I could have said, “cut unnecessary words,” but “verbiage” has a slightly different meaning. It’s not enough to cut individual words, you have to look at the entire phrasing of a passage before cutting.)
Never use the passive where you can use the active. This is utter crap. There is nothing wrong with the passive voice. Because the actor can be obscured in the passive voice, it should be avoided when writing instructions and in other cases when you need to make clear who is performing the action, but otherwise there is nothing wrong with it. In fact, the passive is essential to creating readable and flowing prose. And in this very essay, Orwell ignores his own advice and uses the passive voice far more often than most published writers of his day.
Never use a foreign phrase, a scientific word, or a jargon word if you can think of an everyday English equivalent. Often jargon or foreign terms convey the meaning more precisely and succinctly. Orwell would have been better served by combining this rule with number two and saying, “avoid using long words or obscure vocabulary to create an erudite or affected tone.”
Break any of these rules sooner than say anything outright barbarous. This is the one great rule that Orwell promulgates and almost, but not quite, makes up for the failings of the other five. It should be the prime directive of any style guide.
This does not bode well for future entries in this blog. Let’s hope that in the future the Guardian bloggers will put more thought and consideration into their musings on style.
