Orwell wrote important and influential books but his actual writing was quite pedestrian - much more like a good journalist than a great literary stylist.

Thackeray, on the other hand, broke all of those rules (except perhaps the last) in almost every sentence in "Vanity Fair", and yet I know which I find the more pleasurable to read. I've also never put much stock in this notion of the evils of the passive voice - which thing Orwell himself seemingly struggled greatly to avoid.

I'm a big fan of Orwell, and yes he "wrote like a good journalist," since he was a journalist. Some people would say the world's best :) Gotta say, I haven't heard a whole lot of people championing the passive voice! If you have an idea to communicate, it strikes me as strange that you would want to leave out information - which is my biggest problem with the passive voice. "Is rumored to be" is a shifty way a writer can avoid telling you who started the rumor. I find it depressing to read all the comments on this post. I hoped there would be more intellectual seriousness on HN, and I have big doubts about how mature a person can be if they haven't gotten over the desire to write like a grown-up, instead of actually conveying a point in a simple way. I'm not a Paul Graham fanboy, but he couldn't be more right in this case.

Here's a great piece from Geoffrey Pullum (fairly pre-eminent linguist) on the passive voice: http://www.lel.ed.ac.uk/~gpullum/passive_loathing.pdf

I think the discussion on this article has been very good, actually, and I'm not sure phrases like "intellectual seriousness" really add much to the debate.

"Intellectual seriousness" is a bad choice of words. Sorry, my irritation got the better of me. And to be more charitable to you, while I think writers should avoid the passive voice, I also don't believe there is any rule so important that one can never break it. The more important thing should always be to get one's point across.

That essay makes some good points. In my previous comment I was thinking mainly of sentences like "Mistakes were made."

Here's where I think pg is coming from:

1) you are going to be writing about something you know

2) you are going to be writing to "people like you"

3) you are going to be read by, maybe as a product of 1 and 2, people at your order of expertise.

Given these qualifications, it's always best to write in a conversational tone using words you would normally use.

With that in mind, going through your points:

(i) most people don't use metaphors that are predominantly seen in print in an conversation.

(ii) Tricky. I think this depends on the audience. Sometimes, used well, this leads to prose that flows better. I think a better rule would be: use the word that fits with the tone and content.

(iii) Agreed!

(iv) Yup. Few people use passive voice in conversations. Maybe the same ones who disregard (i).

(v) Again, this depends on your audience. Obviously, Orwell (or any mainstream-ish writer), would have a lower common denominator than your audience.

(vi) haha.

But, yeah, I like pg's suggestion because it is .. well.. more succinct: easier to remember 1 guideline than vi rules :)

> Few people use passive voice in conversations.

Where did you get that from? Passive voice is extremely common in conversations.

"He was acquitted of robbery" (passive) is probably more common than "The jury acquitted him of robbery" (active). "I was born in 1973" (passive) is much more common than "My mother gave birth to me in 1973" (active). "The X-Files was cancelled in 2002" (passive) vs. "Fox management cancelled the X-Files in 2002" (active). Even very colloquial phrases like, "The Cubs got wrecked in that series." Etc.

[Edit to expand/clarify examples.]

Passive voice is one of those things that really irks people for some reason, mostly because their grammar school teacher taught them so. It has a lot of legitimate uses, but the knee-jerk reaction it invokes in people is bizarre.

For instance, there are many cases where one would want to de-emphasize the subject, or cases where the tone should be "passive" in the sense opposite from "aggressive". If you are arguing with someone because you think they are wrong but don't want to put blame, you may want to say "It was wrong to do that" instead of "You were wrong to do that".

Another use of passive voice is for a certain dark style and more mysterious tone. A good example of this is "It was the best of times. It was the worst of times..."

None of the examples with "It was" are grammatically passive, though.

It's striking to check out section 3 of the Pullum paper ("Fear and Loathing of the English Passive") mentioned upthread by bshimmin. Pullum gives 22 (!) examples of people criticizing texts as being "passive" when they aren't.

Edit: Pullum mentions a purported "passive style" (which, if it really exists, among other things avoids directly mentioning individual human beings' responsibility for things that happen) distinct from the "passive voice", which might be part of what you're referring to here. But "it was..." isn't a passive-voice construction.

> "It was wrong to do that" instead of "You were wrong to do that"

Technically true, because it's passive. But still, you'd be using "It was wrong to do that" because it becomes impersonal, more than passive.

The example doesn't really change.

> "The code was broken" instead of "You broke the code" serves the same function.

What's the passive version of "you were wrong to do that"?

I still wouldn't be wrong: few people, not no people.

But, still all those examples seem more like a one-way broadcast/exceptions rather than a conversation or a start to a conversation rather than the body of one.

But maybe I should have said: few exploratory conversations?

I agree these rules are useful, but I will slightly counter with the fact that these rules are conditionally useful. I would adhere to all of these except in the limited contexts stylistically that can benefit. For example, some kinds of styles of novel writing can benefit from breaking most of these, however not in every passage. Again it goes back to know your audience and your goals.

If you want people to understand and consume your writing easily, than these rules are pretty good. They are close to what is taught in journalism school as well. Journalistic writing rules are quite useful for tech articles, blog posts, social media, etc., but less useful sometimes for more exciting creative writing. Sometimes rambling and using huge words is a style and a signature of a writer. The same writer might fail miserably writing like that writing a different story that needs a more to the point, simple style.

You're being too literal. "Write uh exactly um exactly like heh you talk" is terrible advice, but nobody would ever recommend that seriously. "Write like you talk" is excellent advice, and roughly the same thing that Orwell preached in his essays on language.

>(iii) If it is possible to cut a word out, always cut it out.

If it is possible to cut a word, always cut it.

If possible to cut a word, cut it.

If possible, cut.

But of course "if possible" is implied, he wouldn't be advising you to do anything impossible, so just:

Cut.

You're misunderstanding "if possible" here. It means "if it can be done while conveying all that you need to convey, and saying all that you mean." "Cut" doesn't do that.

How about "Cut words out, when possible."?

Twain would be pleased.

I miss Mark.

Oh, if only scientific papers took that advice!