Blog Post #6: "Politics and the English Language" and "The Science of Scientific Writing"

Orwell's essay, "Politics and the English Language" is primarily Orwell arguing that political writing is misusing the English language, but many of Orwell's criticisms can be applied to other types of writing as well. Orwell's six rules at the end of his essay, in particular, can be used by any writer for any type of writing. As a writer, I could most relate to Orwell's advice to cut out words where they are not needed. My style of writing can only be described as "talking in the form of writing." Whenever I write, I say my ideas aloud in my head and then I transcribe them into written words. This often makes my sentences very long and heavy. These run-on sentences sound fine when I say them aloud, but in writing, as Orwell says, they are too wordy and unnecessary. I could definitely benefit by taking his advice and cutting out some words and making my sentences shorter. Also, I'm not exactly sure if I do this, but a lot of people try and use long fancy words to sound smarter and to have their writing sound more "grown-up." As Orwell says, it is not necessary, and often doesn't even serve its purpose, especially when the words are misused.

While Swan and Gospen's "The Science of Scientific Writing" focused mainly on scientific writing, the ideas that they presented could be applied to any writing, much like Orwell's advice on political writing. Swan and Gospen's main point was that it is important for a writer to gain control over the reader's interpretive process. The writer can never completely guarantee that what he or she writes will be interpreted exactly as intended, but by making his or her writing as clear as possible, the writer can ensure that both reader and writer will perceive the same things as being important. For example, syntactic resolution, putting the subject and verb together with little interruption, is key to making sure that what is emphasized in the writing is what was intended to be emphasized. This is because the interruption between the subject and verb is seen as less important than the rest of the sentence. This resonated with me because I often have very large "interruptions" in my writing just so that I can have a long sentence that is also grammatically correct. In fact, I was tempted to use "interruptions" in my last two sentences, and I did use one three sentences ago. Often if the "interruption" is too long, the reader is forced to go back and read the sentence again, but without the interruption.

Another thing that Swan and Gospen mentioned that I thought was interesting was the importance of placement of ideas within a sentence. At first, it almost seemed as though Swan and Gospen were advising to craft every sentence consciously putting the emphasis in the stress position and the old, or linking, information in the topic position. I realized later, though, that this is not something that consciously be done unless the writer wants to spend hours writing mere sentences. Rather, it is something that must be done subconsciously in order to make a paragraph flow smoothly. It is definitely easier in creative writing, as opposed to scientific writing, to subconsciously put emphasis in the stress position and old information in the topic position. This is why I've never had to think about it before. But even though it seems easier than Swan and Gospen make it out to be, we, as writers, must still be careful of our placement of ideas in sentences because often what makes sense to us, is interpreted differently by the reader.