I am all for options. Sometimes one goes from unawareness to awareness of options. And knowing what you’re doing when you use one and then use the other. Or having an idea what happens when using one and then using the other. Those far more wise than I present valuable points and hints. But sometimes I detect an air of the dictator. I don’t like dictators.
Dictators are the worst people to ever breathe. What I find odd, are the old Orwell rules. Not because they are invaluable. Too bad they didn’t get titled Suggestions for writing. When you’re stuck or lost or the project looks like it wants to curl up and die, you might try these on for size. See if they jazz it up a bit. Well from what I understand, the primary driver of Orwell being so passionate about things like clarity and short words, had to do with the fact that totalitarian regimes tended to eschew simple, concrete, language, thus enabling ambiguity, thus leaving room for interpretations….
well yeah that’s a dangerous recipe for a society of people valuing maximum personal liberty – but to leave room for multiple interpretations and steering clear of clarity – sounds like the stuff I like to write and loosely call poetry – or poetic prose – or pointless, moral-free, unimportant stories long or short. Well the weird part from where I’m standing: when I encounter writing articles that focus on the importance of the concrete over the abstract, they often tend to come across a bit, well, a bit dictatorial. Dictators put me off bigtime.
So hearing or reading little dictators harping on the importance of the concrete… something inside wants to – feels the need – a survival instinct? – to do the opposite. It shouldn’t be that way. Should see them as options. Concrete does this, abstraction does that…. decide what the thing wants to do and mess around with both and all points betwixt. What’s so bad about that?