Is he right?
>>7447623
orwell can go fuck himself. write whatever the fuck you want. besides, doesnt his list seem a bit newspeak to you?
>>7447623
Rule no. 6 should read "Break any of these rules sooner than writing something outright barbarous" or something like that. In the original essay anyway
>>7447623
>If it is possible to cut out a word, cut it out?
If possible to cut out word, cut.
>2. Never long when short will do.
They're "rules" for writing essays. Not prose.
nb4 it gets a ton of shit anyway
>>7447623
Orwell has no right to tell other writers how to write. He's got his thing, other people have theirs. If we all followed the advice of other people then we'd all sound the same, and that would remove the very point of writing.
>>7447623
No.
There are no rules for writers.
>>7447772
.,;fwrthfldfdnkabdsnvyvwdhwkdbhn???
ASkfjbawc.
>taking writing advice from a certified hack
Everything he wrote is middle school tier.
What are his parameters? Correct grammar or conveying text enough for reader comprehension?
>>7447623
>Rule 1
I like minimalism, but minimalism isn't good for everything.
>Rule 2
I believe in the complete inverse of that as long as the "long" word isn't obscure or pretentious.
>Rule 3
Active voice is usually better than passive; it flows better imo.
>Rule 4
Depends on the subject matter.
>Rule 5
Originality is hard, but worth it.
>Rule 6
Harr harr
No, he's a hack.
>>7447651
I write all my essays in heavy prose.
>>7447638
Rule 6. genius.
Everyone in this fucking thread:
"Who the fuck does Orwell think he is? There are no rules of writing; I should know because I've written a 200,000 word unpublished self-insert Mary-Sue story filled with purple prose and misused technical terms to make me sound smart, and it's way better than any of the crap Orwell ever wrote."
>>7447885
>>7447855
>>7447772
>>7447683
>>7447651
>>7447629
>all these purple prose babbies.
>>7448094
purple prose? no, i don't like nabokov.
>>7448094
What do YOU think purple prose is? You can write something which isn't purple prose without following these rules/guidelines.
>>7448106
Some people can, just not the people who go "These rules are stupid, ignore them."
>1
too vague to be of any use, any writer will be cutting out words he doesn't think are necessary, but the criteria he uses changes from person to person and orwell doesn't give us much.
>2
vague. do the connotations of 'extenuate' make it a better or worse candidate than something like 'temper'?
>3
literal bullshit
>4
'write for plebs'
>5
agree
>6
meh
>>7447777
The fact that you, an anonymous nobody on a random image board, is accusing someone who, accurately or not, is widely recognized to be one of the greatest writers of the 20th century of being a hack with no argument or evidence is proof that nothing you say should be taken seriously.
>>7448143
>taking anything on a Zimbabwean music box engraving image board seriously
>>7447623
>muh purple prose
>>7448106
basically this:
>>7448120
what people don't realize is that Orwell's rules and Strunk/White's Elements of Style were guidelines for actually creating your own style.
it's the verbose illiterates who all sound the same.
>>7448121
>but the criteria he uses changes from person to person and orwell doesn't give us much.
that's the point. you have a brain, right? you can think for yourself, can't you?
>vague. do the connotations of 'extenuate' make it a better or worse candidate than something like 'temper'?
Orwell would probably argue that those two aren't interchangeable. See below.
>literal bullshit
that's like the least contentious thing he said though.
>'write for plebs'
that's not what he said. Orwell was a prescriptivist, meaning he didn't want his precious English language decaying the same way Latin did. too bad that's exactly what's happening nowadays what with personal pronouns and everything getting an -ism.
>>7448149
Do you really want writing to sound like this?
>Sympathise with me, indeed! Ah, no! Cast your sympathy on the chill waves of troubled waters; fling it on the oases of futurity; dash it against the rock of gossip; or, better still, allow it to remain within the false and faithless bosom of buried scorn.
>Such were a few remarks of Irene as she paced the beach of limited freedom, alone and unprotected. Sympathy can wound the breast of trodden patience,—it hath no rival to insure the feelings we possess, save that of sorrow.
>>7447623
>muh here are some rules
>no.1 rule is break the rules
gee, thanks for institutionalizing anti-intitutionalism
>>7448192
Reminds me of the unrevised Montcrieff Proust. There's a reason why the most accepted version has been revised multiple times.
>>7448192
There's a difference between writing like this and intentionally simplifying your writing to not appear pretentious.
>>7448143
>widely recognized to be one of the greatest writers of the 20th century
Pls anon write post another one I am dying
>>7447623
These are rules for political writing, not creative writing, you misleading shit.
>>7448245
he said "writers" not belletrists.
as far as cultural influence goes, Orwell's up there.
>>7448245
Are you honestly disputing that he's seen as a great writer? Not that he is, but that many people consider him such?
PYNCHON BTFO
>>7448143
You may think I am memeing but you have literally typed r/books, the post
>>7448264
>saying advice is bad means you do the opposite 100% of the time
here's some bad advice for you anon: don't kill yourself
>>7448245
i dont really know where you get your opinions
i dont know how much orwell you've read
i dont know if you've read the essays
i dont know who else you read
i dont know how you write
basically i don't trust your opinion, but a lot of great writers have praise for orwell in his essays + homage to catalonia
you might be one of those people who read animal farm and was annoyed that so many people liked it because you read faulkner or delillo or pynchon or bellow and find their style so much better
and you'd be right, but orwell was never a great novellist, he was a great essayist and political writer
just because orwell is popular doesn't make you a magical dissenter for disliking him, in fact, you've shown us nothing but ridiculous, unwarranted and un-backed resentment
TLDR stop shitposting
>>7448279
>homage to catalonia
>>7448279
>he thinks Orwell is a good political writer
I remember when I was 17
>>7447629
Refer to rule #6.
>>7448282
it's a good book. I enjoyed it. I don't know what you are implying but it doesn't respond to anything. and somehow you are still shitposting.
>>7448287
in the sense that his writing addresses politics and it's good writing. Politics and the English Language should be required reading in school. who did you have in mind that is so much better?
>>7448297
Is this post meant to be taken seriously?
>>7448306
poe's law, faggot. I have not indicated I am trolling, therefore I am not trolling. Yes, I am being serious. Fire back with whatever you have. and stop shitposting
>>7448121
You do realize he wrote a whole essay explaining his justifications for these rules?
>>7448287
>i don't agree with it so it must be bad!
>>7448349
we all gotta grow up someday little buddy
>>7448311
You still read Orwell? Are you old enough to be on this website?
>>7448297
somehow you are it's a good book in the sense that is so much better still
>>7448368
>stop disagreeing with me!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Orwell a shit. don't like it don't reply. I can tell you're either from reddit or legit autistic because you can't ignore dissenting opinions.
>>7448359
well, if you read more stuff you disagreed with, you'd probably be better at defending your opinions, instead of whatever this is.
>>7448306
>>7448359
>>7448368
>>7448372
I am >>7448311
and I am still waiting for that response on how Orwell is a terrible hack and doesn't deserve a second glance. In other words, explain your "dissenting opinion" because the only thing you've explained so far is that you hate Orwell and can't be bothered to say why. Whereas I think his essays are worthwhile and good. I'm starting to doubt whether you've read any Orwell at all, beside 1984, and that's why you refuse to discuss.
>>7448376
here it is
>>7448383
look at this little underaged shit.
>>7448383
so you definitely have no idea what you're talking about when it comes to Orwell, which is fine, but you could have just mentioned that from the start and saved everyone some time. Is your entire life full of worthless opinions? will you also vote for Donald Trump?
>abandoning thread
>>7448373
go back to /mu/ underage
>>7448376
>if you don't engage me you're wrong
I'm still not convinced YOU'RE not the one trolling me and shitposting. either way I am too tired to try to educate you. you might look back on Orwell when you turn twenty and realize he is only mediocre, or you might worship him forever. either way for now I think you should add another tally to your list of internet arguments won, since it seems that is very important to you.
>>7448410
whatever mein neger. you're the one coming to Orwell posts on /lit/ and trashing him and then shitposting to hell when people call you on your bullshit. if you can't defend yourself then stop making substantive claims on literature and writers.
>>7447623
the list was meant for essay writing, but it works surprisingly well for poetry
1. is required
2. is mostly correct
3. is sometimes correct
4. is required
5. is required
6. is obviously true
>>7448359
>Disliking Orwell.
>>7448100
>i don't like nabokov
>>7448265
Agreed.
>>7448772
>9gag tier reaction image
>orwell fan
Wow that's interesting
>>7450379
He actually fell for that
I'm not that guy but that was some obvious bait my man
>>7448094
>He thinks prose has to be purple just because it's described well, and even if it is, it's a bad thing to describe it
>>7448143
Dude, there's great writers and there's great writers, and Orwell is in neither catagory. He's just famous, that doesn't make him great. Same as the Orsen Scott Card, I hear a ton of people crying that he's great but he's amature at best.
>>7448264
So you think Blood Meridian isn't written clearly? Be honest now. There's some superflous, flowery writing in that book, but all of it has a real meaning if you actually read it. It's just a case of you actually reading it. I'm not even close to as good as Cormic McCarthy, but I can understand the need for not using generic, bland sentences just because they're easier for kids to read
>Cut words you can
>use small words
>active voice
>write normal
>unique metaphors
>don't follow rules if outcome is stupid
Improved?
>>7450444
yes
>>7450444
trips of truth
>>7447634
>Rule no. 6 should read "Break any of these rules sooner than writing something outright barbarous" or something like that. In the original essay anyway
ur right, its barbarous, and its a joke i think
