I do understand that it is a bit perverse of me to try to communicate the essence of effective writing when the majority of my readers have English as their second language - particularly when I return fairly often to the subject. It was, for example, just 3 years ago when I commended almost 60 writers for the quality of their writing – although at least a dozen of them were bilingual (eg Svetlana Alexievich, Oriana Fallacia, Masha Gessen, Sebastian Haffner, Arthur Koestler and Joseph Roth)
But these efforts simply flagged up my preferences – they didn’t try to identify the features that gave the writing its impact. And that’s what I now want to attempt – building on the comment in the last post that “impact” has something to do with not only the style but also the character of the writer. Generally, of course, we are told to separate the two when we are considering creativity - but I think this is impossible
Let’s start with character – as I survey the various
lists I’ve made, what comes through is the breadth of their curiousity and the independence
of their thought – indeed their downright obstinacy. They read voraciously
across intellectual (and often national) boundaries – and don’t suffer fools
gladly.
On style, they generally use short sentences and are constantly on their guard against the clichés and metaphors which so easily take over our minds. We should be in charge of language – not the other way around. George Orwell is the master of this – as his widow put it in her preface to the 2nd volume of “Collected Essays, Journalism and Letters”, he was –
one of the
most honest and individual writers of this century -- a man who forged a unique
literary manner from the process of thinking aloud, who possessed an unerring
gift for going straight to the point, and who elevated political writing to an
art.
The very first essay in that second volume is on “New words” which anticipates the Newspeak his 1984 made famous
When you are
asked "Why do you do, or not do, so and so?" you are invariably aware
that your real reason will not go into words, even when you have no wish to
conceal it; consequently you rationalize your conduct, more or less dishonestly.
I don't know whether everyone would admit this, and it is a fact that some
people seem unaware of being influenced by their inner life, or even of having
any inner life.
For anyone
who is not a considerable artist (possibly for them too) the lumpishness of
words results in constant falsification…. A writer falsifies himself both
intentionally and unintentionally. Intentionally, because the accidental qualities
of words constantly tempt and frighten him away from his true meaning. He gets an
idea, begins trying to express it, and then, in the frightful mess of words
that generally results, a pattern begins to form itself more or less accidentally.
It is not by any means the pattern he wants, but it is at any rate not vulgar
or disagreeable; it is "good art". He takes it, because "good
art" is a more or less mysterious gift from heaven, and it seems a pity to
waste it when it presents itself. Is not anyone with any degree of mental
honesty conscious of telling lies all day long, both in talking and writing,
simply because lies will fall into artistic shape when truth will not?
In practice everyone recognizes the inadequacy of language -- consider such expressions as "Words fail", "It wasn't what he said, it was the way he said it", etc.)
No wonder TS Eliot (who didn’t like Orwell!) wrote (in “Burnt Norton”) –
Words
strain,
Crack and
sometimes break, under the burden,
Under the
tension, slip, slide, perish,
decay with
imprecision, will not stay in place
You can read the entire poem here and later (in East Coker) a section I use a lot –
So here I
am, in the middle way, having had twenty years
Trying to
learn to use words, and every attempt
Is a wholly
new start, and a different kind of failure
Because one
has only learnt to get the better of words
Yanis Varoufakis has clearly read his “Politics and the English language” essay from 1946 and I tried recently to understand why Varoufakis writes so well –
What makes Varoufakis' various books such
excellent reading is the sheer originality of his prose –showing a mind at work
which is constantly active…...rejecting dead phrases, clichés and jargon…
helping us see thlngs in a different light..... using narrative and stories to
keep the readers’ interest alive…He's in total command of the english language
- rather than, as so usual, it in control of him.....
You don’t expect to find good prose in the
“Further Reading” section of a book, but just see what Varoufakis does with the
task…
As usual, words (and thoughts) have distracted me from the intention behind this post – namely to try to identify the characteristics of “writing which makes an impact”. To demonstrate the difficulty of such an endeavour, let me share with you 60 Words to describe Writing or Speaking Styles …..
articulate – able to express your
thoughts, arguments, and ideas clearly and effectively; writing or speech
is clear and easy to understand
chatty – a chatty writing style is
friendly and informal
circuitous – taking a long time to say
what you really mean when you are talking or writing about something
clean – clean language or humour does
not offend people, especially because it does not involve sex
conversational – a conversational style
of writing or speaking is informal, like a private conversation
crisp – crisp speech or writing is clear
and effective
declamatory – expressing feelings or
opinions with great force
diffuse – using too many words and not
easy to understand
discursive – including information that
is not relevant to the main subject
disputatious - an inclination to argue
economical – an economical way of
speaking or writing does not use more words than are necessary
elliptical – suggesting what you mean
rather than saying or writing it clearly
eloquent – expressing what you mean
using clear and effective language
emphatic – making your meaning very
clear because you have very strong feelings about a situation or subject
epigrammatic – expressing something such
as a feeling or idea in a short and clever or funny way
epistolary – relating to the writing of letters
euphemistic – euphemistic expressions
are used for talking about unpleasant or embarrassing subjects without mentioning
the things themselves
flowery – flowery language or writing
uses many complicated words that are intended to make it more attractive
fluent – expressing yourself in a clear
and confident way, without seeming to make an effort
formal – correct or conservative in
style, and suitable for official or serious situations or occasions
gossipy – a gossipy letter is lively and
full of news about the writer of the letter and about other people
grandiloquent – expressed in extremely
formal language in order to impress people, and often sounding silly because of
this
idiomatic – expressing things in a way
that sounds natural
inarticulate – not able to express
clearly what you want to say; not spoken or pronounced clearly
incoherent – unable to express yourself
clearly
informal – used about language or
behaviour that is suitable for using with friends but not in formal situations
journalistic – similar in style to
journalism
learned – a learned piece of writing
shows great knowledge about a subject, especially an academic subject
literary – involving books or the
activity of writing, reading, or studying books; relating to the kind of
words that are used only in stories or poems, and not in normal writing or
speech
lyric – using words to express feelings
in the way that a song would
lyrical – having the qualities of music
ornate – using unusual words and
complicated sentences
orotund – containing extremely formal
and complicated language intended to impress people
parenthetical – not directly connected
with what you are saying or writing
pejorative – a pejorative word, phrase
etc expresses criticism or a bad opinion of someone or something
picturesque – picturesque language is
unusual and interesting
pithy – a pithy statement or piece of
writing is short and very effective
poetic – expressing ideas in a very
sensitive way and with great beauty or imagination
polemical – using or supported by strong
arguments
ponderous – ponderous writing or speech
is serious and boring
portentous – trying to seem very serious
and important, in order to impress people
prolix – using too many words and
therefore boring
punchy – a punchy piece of writing such
as a speech, report, or slogan is one that has a strong effect because it uses
clear simple language and not many words
rambling – a rambling speech or piece of
writing is long and confusing
readable – writing that is readable is
clear and able to be read
rhetorical – relating to a style of
speaking or writing that is effective or intended to influence
people; written or spoken in a way that is impressive but is not honest
rhetorically – in a way that expects or
wants no answer; using or relating to rhetoric
rough – a rough drawing or piece of
writing is not completely finished
roundly– in a strong and clear way
sententious – expressing opinions about
right and wrong behaviour in a way that is intended to impress people
sesquipedalian – using a lot of long
words that most people do not understand
Shakespearean – using words in the way
that is typical of Shakespeare’s writing
stylistic – relating to ways of creating
effects, especially in language and literature
succinct – expressed in a very short but
clear way
turgid – using language in a way that is
complicated and difficult to understand
unprintable – used for describing
writing or words that you think are offensive
vague – someone who is vague does not
clearly or fully explain something
verbose – using more words than
necessary, and therefore long and boring
well-turned – a well-turned phrase is
one that is expressed well
wordy – using more words than are
necessary, especially long or formal words
No comments:
Post a Comment