Flourish or not Flourish that is the Question.

So to give a little context about the topic I will expand on and why I chose it, it is fair to clarify how I have never been fond of poetry or any kind of embellishment when writing.  Yet I still consider important for a book, novel or tale to include perhaps flourish expressions in order to set the mood of a scene in any kind of story.

To begin with, in this piece of writing the main aim is to compare the writing style used by two famous writers, George Orwell and Edgar Allan Poe; specifically Orwell’s 1984 and Poe’s The Fall of the House of Usher.

Both writers claim to have rules that must be followed by whoever writes a story. Nevertheless, each author self-proclaimed rules of writing are different from each other.

Both Orwell and Poe made a clear use of such writing rules when they wrote the stories named above. Let’s revise my favorite first.

I read 1984 about a year ago, mainly out of curiosity since I heard lots of comments saying how The Hunger Games was just another copy of Orwell’s Dystopia with few details that makes it much more amiable than 1984 for nowadays youngsters.

That being said, I think it is fair to say that even though I love The Hunger Games saga with all my heart, 1984 has something that blew my mind. You may wonder what it is that I found so attractive and interesting about this novel; the answer is its simplistic yet incredibly descriptive writing style. Unlike other writers, Orwell strongly believed that there was no need to decorate an utterance with fancy metaphors or words in order to depict a scene. He made these assertions in his essay Politics and the English Language (1946) where he refers to 4 rules to follow for a good writing:

• 1   Dying metaphor: Never use a metaphor, simile, or other figure of speech which you are used to seeing in print.
• 
  
• 2   Operators or Verbal False limbs:  Never use the passive where you can use the active.
• 
  
• 3    Pretentious Diction: Never use a foreign phrase, a scientific word, or a jargon word if you can think of an everyday English equivalent.
• 
  
• 4     Meaningless Words: If it is possible to cut a word out, always cut it out.

The rules above can be described as utterly straight and narrow regarding the conceptions of description of an event. These, characteristics in a book were so important for Orwell that in 1984, are present throughout the whole book, making it almost a character from it.

However the rules of writing a good story for Poe are far different from Orwell’s set of rules. For Poe, there are 3 main factors to be taken into consideration when writing a well-constructed story (The Philosophy of Composition, 1846):

• 1    Length: short stories are superior.
• 
  
• 2   Method: writing is methodical and analytical, not spontaneous.
• 
  
• 3    Unity of Effect: a work of fiction should be written only after the author has decided how it is to end and which emotional response, or "effect," he wishes to create.

Poe, in his tale The Fall of the House of Usher, uses a language that thought as allegorical, even considered as psychological realism so the writer can transmit all sorts of feelings for the reader to feel what the character feels while reading the tale. Moreover, as the story develops we come to realize that there is some sort of rhythm when giving characteristics about the environment where the narrator is; such feature strikes me not as a mere coincidence but as the second rule states, it was carefully thought so to give a specific characteristic to the mood or scene as a whole.

So far the distinction between both books strikes as clear. Orwell believed that stories should be written in simple and plain English for the reader comprehend the story smoothly and easily. Whereas, Poe believed that the more thorough description it is, the more sensations were transposed to the reader and therefore the story/tale became more understandable.

That being clear lets exemplify such differences. Both passages are the first we encounter with when reading these stories. First, 1984 and the plain description of a normal day,

It was a bright cold day in April, and the clocks were striking thirteen. Winston Smith, his chin nuzzled into his breast in an effort to escape the vile wind, slipped quickly through the glass doors of Victory Mansions, though not quickly enough to prevent a swirl of gritty dust 

from entering along with him (Book1Ch1, pag.1 "1984")

see? the book description matches the movie atmosphera                                                                         quite well without needing any fany word to elaborte.

  

It can be noticed that simple adjectives are used to describe the setting of the opening. Nouns are concrete. The nouns complements are simple and motionless. This stands for a sole description of a concept and an event, it does not convey an emotion but it does set the characteristics of the rather plain city and life where the story Winston develops.

And then The Fall of the House of Ushe, and its thorough description of what it seems to be a creepy house in a creepy day.

During the whole of a dull, dark, and sounDless day in the autumn of the year, when the clouds hung oppressively low in the heavens, I had been passing alone, on horseback, through a singularly dreary tract of country, and at length found myself, as the shades of the evening drew on, within view of the melancholy House of Usher.("The Fall of the House of Usher" pag.1)

Ok so does Poe's style  -.-!

The Usage of alliteration in the very first line, the adjective “Dreary”, comes from gothic vocabulary and the personification of the house. These features may by a proof of how methodical is Poe’s writing, since he uses several literary devices to set the mood of a story; which in this case, as in many of Poe’s tales, is an obscure environment and horror. This set of features attempt to make the reader to feel the nervousness that the narrator feel as he approaches the house. Language creates reality and sure it gives me the chills.

The following passages were selected since both are part of the climax of each story 

Do you begin to see, then, what kind of world we are creating? It is the exact opposite of the stupid hedonistic Utopias that the old reformers imagined. A world of fear and treachery is torment, a world of trampling and being trampled upon, a world which will grow not less but more merciless as it refines itself. (Ch3.3.pg34, O’Brien, 1984)

 (And that's what happened to those who entered to the mysterious room 101)

No sooner had these syllables passed my lips, than—as if a shield of brass had indeed, at the moment, fallen heavily upon a floor of silver—I became aware of a distinct, hollow metallic, and clangorous, yet apparently muffled, reverberation (pag-23-24 The Fall of the House of Usher)

(guess who wasn't dead after all?)

The first one being part of a conversation between O’Brien and Winston when the latter is being tortured in “room 101”. In here, O’Brien dialogue has a rhythm that conveys security and assertiveness; he speaks as if everything that comes from his mouth is nothing but truth so to convince Winston. And the second one represents a moment of realization and awareness of what he and Roderick had done. Even though, this extract does not depict a transcendental event, it does sets the mood of tension for the upcoming events when it is revealed that Roderick’s sister had been buried alive. And without this passage, all the nervousness, tension and horror that is felt by the reader in the following lines would not have the same intensity.

But what if Orwell would have written as Poe and Poe as Orwell? I will try my best to show you (take into account that I am no writer):

1-Orwell as Poe: Are you capable of noticing after all, that our type of world, the one we are giving birth to, is completely conflicting with simplistic and carnal Utopias? Blah blah blah.

2-Poe as Orwell: The shield fell to the floor. And I became aware of the distinct sound echoing.  

It did not turn out as expected, but it still helps to provide a vivid example of how important is writing style of each to convey exactly what is intended to. In N°1 the monologue losses its intensity by using unnecessary flourish vocabulary. And in N°2 the utterances are too blunt and plain so there is no horror atmosphere and it lacks of tension.  

To recap, in Orwell’s dystopia, it is noticeable the use of everyday English vocabulary, nevertheless, this isn’t detrimental for the atmosphere of the book since it relates directly with its content (Newspeak and the limitations of thought and freedom). So it is completely possible use normal and plain English to write an awesome book. Yet, Poe’s tale, even though I do not like overly described writings, I ended up liking it, but still when I tried to change it from Poe’s to Orwell’s style it strike me that if I change the whole tale, its length would diminish considerably; moreover, I think it would still has the mystery that characterizes Poe’s writings but it would not portray as much sense of horror as in Poe’s style.    

As a personal conclusion and further information, I would like to add that I will always be an eager supporter of "straight to the point" vocabulary, and that this did not turned out  as expected. -.-

References:

          

           Orwell, G. (1946, April). Politics and the English Language. Horizon Magazine.

           

          Echoing Poe, E. (1846, April 1). The Philosophy of Composition. American Monthly Magazine of Literature and Art,. 

          Psychological Realism in Literature: Definition & Overview. (n.d.). Retrieved December 7, 2015, from http://study.com/academy/lesson/psychological-realism-in-literature-definition-lesson-quiz.html