Academic Writing & George Orwell

In the reading, academic writing was described as the antithesis of direct, lean writing. Academic writing is "static" and lacks action, and is written in highly abstract sentences.

"Lean writing," as it was described, seems a lot like story-telling. The author is telling a story about who did what, and when, why, and how. Academic writing is more like theorizing -- it's less likely to talk about specific people or describe specific situations with concrete words and vivid imagery. It's harder for a reader to get a picture in their head about what's beind discussed as they read academic prose.


This ties in with Orwell's discussion of precision in writing. Orwell recommends using simple, everyday words to avoid the mixture of vagueness and incompetence he sees in most modern writing. He believes writers use ready-made phrases, which are spread and sustained through tradition and immitation, when they don't have the skill to accurately convey PRECISELY the images or ideas they have in their own minds.

As a journalism student, I recognize the importance of clarity and concision in writing, but I never really thought about saying things "freshly." Orwell condemns the use of dying metaphors and simple adjectives that replace specifics. Writers should write EXACTLY what it is they want to say. If they describe something with an overused metaphor, it shows that they're not quite sure what it is they're trying to spit out...they just use a metaphor that is often applied to many different situations.

Another point that I will take from the Orwell text concerns adjectives -- that they shouldn't be used ini place of more appropriate specifics. "A beautiful sunset" is not as precise and concrete as "a sunset of reds and violets."