George Orwell and Plain English

Patrick Crozier’s blog entry today reminded me of a lesson I first learned thirty years ago. I was studying English literature for my A levels. One of the books we studied for critical analysis was the George Orwell essays. A fascinating read drawn from the author’s experiences, they also had much to say about how to write – not least because they were excellent examples in their own right. I’ll repeat the rules George Orwell lists (and that Patrick repeats) because they are a cornerstone for good writing:

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.

I endeavour to follow these rules in my writing. A blog entry will often take me an hour or two to complete. The initial brain dump will be incoherent because it contains random thoughts in no particular order. Punctuation will often be illogical as my brain is racing ahead of my typing fingers and words will be jumbled and misspelled – for the same reason. Then comes the proof reading. I have always tried wherever possible to seek my own metaphors – certainly if I see a cliché in my text I decide whether a metaphor or simile is necessary. If so, I will try to come up with something original. If not, I apply rule 3. As far as rule 2 is concerned, I try to use words that convey my meaning as accurately as possible regardless of length – however, I will then make a decision about whether that meaning may be conveyed more simply. My writing on the whole is categorised by short, sharp sentences – unless unavoidable.

In the same vein as this discussion, there was a piece on the BBC news this morning about email correspondence. Many forget that this form of communication is as legally binding on them as any other form of written word; the laws of libel still apply and they can get people into deep trouble. I treat email correspondence in exactly the same way as I do a formal paper letter and follow the same process outlined above using the Orwell six rule system. Sometimes, despite my best endeavours, people misinterpret my words, but I have at least tried to make my meaning clear.

I think the final rule is invaluable. My writing is occasionally contentious. My subjects often controversial – look at the recent discussion on free speech, for example. However, I always value reasoned debate that is civilised and adult. I agree with Orwell, and will never knowingly write anything that is "outright barbarous".

George Orwell is one of our modern classic writers, I cannot recommend his essays enough.