/lit/ - Literature

>>16561045
Isn't Orwell mainly talking about clarity in political writing?

>>16561051
Sure, but it affects all other writing too. It degrades the language as a whole. It is a general trend that is affecting everyone

>>16561051
This board is infested with people using big, abstract and niche words to looks smart. People seem to be unable to explain thoughts clearly using effective metaphors for example, but always jumble together some big abstract words making themselves hard to understand

Read Witty

>>16561071
sometimes "big abstract words" make communication more efficient and comprehensible if everyone in the conversation is familiar with them

>>16561125
Don't lie to yourself. You know lit pseuds only use them to sound cool

>>16561142
cope

>>16561057
The kind of linguistic "decadence," and therefore its causal connection to that of its birthing society, that Orwell writes about stretches back to oral history -- and it's arguably rooted in it. If we're to believe that decadent language is the mark of a declining civilization, where exactly can you find a society which is rich, content, and human without commensurately rich language? These writings are also really out of date, and are purely a function of the times they were written in. How do you reconcile current literary trends with Orwell's observations? Contemporary literature is possessed of almost precisely the same sparsity of prose Orwell desires. How do you account for the fact that Orwell's stylistic preferences have actually and overwhelmingly been adopted, while the social and political negatives he describes have literally done nothing if not intensified?

I get where you're coming from, and I even agree partially, but what was linked is dated and absolutely crumbles under even light scrutiny.

>>16561045
>(i) Never use a metaphor, simile, or other figure of speech which you are used to seeing in print.

>(ii) Never us a long word where a short one will do.

>(iii) If it is possible to cut a word out, always cut it out.

>(iv) Never use the passive where you can use the active.

>(v) Never use a foreign phrase, a scientific word, or a jargon word if you can think of an everyday English equivalent.

>(vi) Break any of these rules sooner than say anything outright barbarous.

Mustache man is right. Trust mustache man.

I was made to read this when I started my course at university

>>16561045
I'll read it after my cigarette.

>>16561045
Very based article and based thread too

>>16561045
>cat-v
Why don't you follow his example, OP?

>>16561781
What does the fifth one mean?

I understand that Orwell is saying. I've been writing short essays about things that reflect on myself and who I am and then posting them to my Facebook. I've found that I want to be precise as possible and that means stripping down each sentence to mean exactly what I want it to without any pretention or contrivance.

Communication is instinctual and it feels wrong to use words and phrases that I don't understand or aren't fit for use. Type is different from verbal speech in that you can fumble a sentence while speaking and discover what you mean while you're saying it. Type is premeditated and fumbling your type like you would speech is painful to read.

Some of those examples Orwell gave are indicative of that. "I am not, indeed sure" makes me feel like I've kissed my brother on the lips.

>>16561125
often "everyone in the conversation being familiar with them" means a fashionable affectation. look, big words can be effective, but if overused they dull your prose. the temptation is usually to overuse them

>>16561620
>Orwell's stylistic preferences have actually and overwhelmingly been adopted
I see examples of what Orwell talks about all the time. Its easy to imagine 2020 Orwell rewriting the essay to excoriate contemporary academics, political activists and hack journalists, who abuse somewhat different jargon than was current with the mid-century intelligentsia but whose offenses are much the same. Many offenses are exactly the same. so many points in his essay are still correct now, perhaps more-so now than in the past

>>16561071
NOOOOOOO IF YOU WANT TO BE A GOOD WRITER OR LITERARY CRITICS YOU'VE GOT TO READ THE UPANISHADS UNTIL YOU CAN REMEMBER IT ALL OFF BY HEART LIKE I PRETEND TO HAVE DONE WHEN I TALK TO STRANGERS ON THE INTERNET

THE AUTHOR OF THIS OBSCURE LITURGICAL TEXT FROM CENTURIES AGO WOULD TOTALLY AGREE WITH MY CONTEMPORARY AMERICAN POLITICS, FUCK TRANNIES AND FUCK JANNIES

I'VE READ EVERY BOOK BY JAMES JOYCE AND DIDN'T LOSE TRACK OF WHAT WAS GOING ON AT ANY POINT AT POINT ANY ANT POT NOINY

>>16562218
It means the morphology and etymology of the utterance should be that of common parlance, where such an emanation is practicable

>They don't ensconce their phrasing to obstruct ultracrepidarians partaking in their intellectual jousts
Methinks this is pretty cringe

>>16561781
This is literally newspeak

>>16563371
No its not, newspeak would never allow vivid metaphors and the candour of language he espouses

>>16561045
George "prose literature has reached its highest levels in periods of democracy and free speculation" Orwell. LMAO

What are your thoughts on this?