Letterpress joy- George Orwell’s rules for writing

George Orwell was, there can be no argument, a head-noddingly good writer, and not only of fiction- his general thinking about his work was pretty special. One of the more famous essays of his is Politics and the English language (1946) which lays out his rules for writing, in order to express your ideas in the clearest way possible.

Now, even though George’s rules were meant to make the meaning as clear as possible, and weren’t intended to cover literary writing, I still find them good principles on which to base my work.  Generally, there’s a meaning behind whatever-it-is-I’m-writing and, in some way, that meaning needs to be expressed.  Having become disgusted with the horrific array of clichéd, self-important, pseudo-intellectual, self-congratulatory arse-wash that passes for writing these days, it was an amazing experience to return to Keep the aspidistra flying and realise that not all prose needs to be so godawful.  George Orwell knew how to turn a phrase, and he knew what he was writing about.  Anyone who’s had a conversation with me about what I value in literary writing (and to everyone who has- I’m sorry) knows that what I look for most is a union of form and content.  Your narrative needs to be in dialogue with the form in which it’s written, and the one needs to inform the other.  If it doesn’t, then it’s just wasting my time.

Which brings me, in a vague, waffling way, to this poster.  While working at Phil Abel’s treasure trove of printing, Hand & Eye, we talked about a great many things, one of which was a respect for good writing.  I happened to mention that I had George Orwell’s rules of writing pinned to my wall, and we thought it’d be a great idea to make a poster of them on the proofing press.  A little typesetting later, and it was done.  Thanks, Phil.

For those of an interested bent, it was set in Grot and Bembo fonts of varying sizes and is, above all, lovely- the photo doesn’t do it justice.  They’re both beautiful typefaces and, of course, we now have a great marriage of form and content- elegant rules about clear writing, written clearly and elegantly.  Eyethankyew.

Tags: , , , , , ,

  1. Ben Walker’s avatar

    Wow. I want one. That essay has a tendency to be beautifully set by its fans. My favourite version is here:

    http://www.calvinvanhoek.com/articles/2007/04/politics-english-language/

    It’s not astoundingly beautiful, or even super-readable, but the essay deserves that sort of attention to detail. Having said that, I have it printed out at home in A4-wide columns of slightly oversized Times New Roman. What a hypocrite. ;o)

  2. Andrew Haydon’s avatar

    Can these be obtained for money? I want one.

  3. Andrew Haydon’s avatar

    Although, Jesus, every time I read the full essay it feels like a telling off.

    Ouch. Similarly, not sure I agree with him on everything. And didn’t all this get superseded by a bunch of impenetrable poststructuralists who were even more tough on language’s hidden ideological, uh, structures.

  4. nick’s avatar

    I think I agree with him on pretty much everything. Of course, though, it’s still to do with writing for clarity, not writing for elegance; I’d argue that often, they amount to the same thing. And there’s still wiggle room- when would a short word “do”…?

    I would never, ever, read a poststructuralist’s writing if I were looking for clarity of thought. There’s always a metric ton of pseudoscientific bumwash with those people.