view · edit · attach · print · changes · refcount · rss
In an essay on the Politics of the English language, George Orwell writes:

A scrupulous writer, in every sentence that he writes, will ask himself at least four questions, thus: What am I trying to say? What words will express it? What image or idiom will make it clearer? Is this image fresh enough to have an effect? And he will probably ask himself two more: Could I put it more shortly? Have I said anything that is avoidably ugly?

Times have changed a little. The masculine phrasing could be rewritten as:

Scrupulous writers, in every sentence they write, will ask themselves the following four questions

In the same essay, Orwell criticizes the typical style of art criticism.

In certain kinds of writing, particularly in art criticism and literary criticism, it is normal to come across long passages which are almost completely lacking in meaning. Words like romantic, plastic, values, human, dead, sentimental, natural, vitality, as used in art criticism, are strictly meaningless, in the sense that they not only do not point to any discoverable object, but are hardly ever expected to do so by the reader. When one critic writes, "The outstanding feature of Mr. X's work is its lively quality," while another writes, "The immediately striking thing about Mr. X's work is it's peculiar deadness," the reader accepts this as a simple difference of opinion. If words like black and white were involved, instead of the jargon words dead and living, he would see at once that language was being used in an improper way.

 Orwell, George.  A Collection of Essays. First Harvest Edition. 1981.
© A. Deck · Last modified July 29, 2004, at 04:40 PM