About

I'm a writer and creative director. I make things, collect books, write fiction and don't understand Zen. I'm Vegan.

Latest Tweets

Follow on Twitter

My Photostream

George Orwell On Why We Write

According to George Orwell, “there are four great motives for writing, at any rate for writing prose. They exist in different degrees in every writer, and in any one writer the proportions will vary from time to time, according to the atmosphere in which he is living.”

They are:

  1. Sheer egoism. Desire to seem clever, to be talked about, to be remembered after death, to get your own back on the grown-ups who snubbed you in childhood, etc., etc. It is humbug to pretend this is not a motive, and a strong one. Writers share this characteristic with scientists, artists, politicians, lawyers, soldiers, successful businessmen — in short, with the whole top crust of humanity. The great mass of human beings are not acutely selfish. After the age of about thirty they almost abandon the sense of being individuals at all — and live chiefly for others, or are simply smothered under drudgery. But there is also the minority of gifted, willful people who are determined to live their own lives to the end, and writers belong in this class. Serious writers, I should say, are on the whole more vain and self-centered than journalists, though less interested in money.
  2. Aesthetic enthusiasm. Perception of beauty in the external world, or, on the other hand, in words and their right arrangement. Pleasure in the impact of one sound on another, in the firmness of good prose or the rhythm of a good story. Desire to share an experience which one feels is valuable and ought not to be missed. The aesthetic motive is very feeble in a lot of writers, but even a pamphleteer or writer of textbooks will have pet words and phrases which appeal to him for non-utilitarian reasons; or he may feel strongly about typography, width of margins, etc. Above the level of a railway guide, no book is quite free from aesthetic considerations.
  3. Historical impulse. Desire to see things as they are, to find out true facts and store them up for the use of posterity.
  4. Political purpose — using the word “political” in the widest possible sense. Desire to push the world in a certain direction, to alter other peoples’ idea of the kind of society that they should strive after. Once again, no book is genuinely free from political bias. The opinion that art should have nothing to do with politics is itself a political attitude.

Omit Needless Words

I sometimes forget to follow this concise tip given by Strunk & White in their classic book Elements of Style.

17. Omit Needless Words.

Vigorous writing is concise. A sentence should contain no unnecessary words, a paragraph no unnecessary sentences, for the same reason that a drawing should have no unnecessary lines and a machine no unnecessary parts.

I’ve already written to much.

Jules et Jim

One of my favorite movies of all time is Jules et Jim by François Truffaut.

Seeing it had a profound impact on me for a number of reasons. I see it as the ultimate meditation on life, friendship and freedom. To live this move is to really live.

The following conversation is from Henri-Pierre Roché’s book Jules et Jim, the inspiration for Truffaut’s unforgettable 1962 French film.

I love what the dialogue says about living life with purpose.

“What do you want to be?”
“A diplomat.”
“Do you have a large fortune?”
“No.”
“Are you related to anyone famous?”
“No.”
“Then forget about diplomacy.”
“Then what can I become?”
“An inquiring mind.”
“That’s not a career.”
“Not yet. Travel, write, translate. Learn to live anywhere, beginning now. The future’s bright for those who question. The French have holed up behind their borders for too long. Some newspapers will always pay for your escapades.”

Truffaut captures the essence of this in the film. He had this to say about Roché’s book:

It was in 1955 that I discovered Henri-Pierre Roché’s novel Jules et Jim, amongst the other secondhand books in the Stock Bookshop stall in the Place du Palais-Royal.

[...] From the very first lines, I fell in love with Henri-Pierre Roché’s prose. At that time, my favorite writer was Jean Cocteau, for his quickfire sentences, their perceptable dryness, and the precision of his images. I was discovering in Henri-Pierre Roché a writer who seemed to me to be stronger than Cocteau, for he achieved the same kind of poetic prose using a less extensive vocabulary, making ultra-short sentences from everyday words. Through Roché’s style, emotion is born out of the void, the emptiness of all the rejected words – it’s even born out of ellipsis.

I was similarly blown away by Truffaut’s film the first time I saw it. Recently, I picked up the Criterion Collection release of Jules et Jim. I’m thrilled to say the least.