In the theory of moral feelings, Adam Smith used the rules regarding writing as a ratio of control of action. He previously looked into two different measures. On one scale, I thought of my impossible paraphrase, what I had to follow to avoid being an active scum person. On the other hand, he also considers the need for the rules of the best person to observe that he is a person of a favor, admiration and admiration.
In the first case, the rules are rather simple and simple. In Smith’s view, the rules necessary to avoid being an aggressive person are “the most accurate, and although exceptions and modifications are not permitted, they may be accurately checked with them.” For Smith, these rules are clear and simple.
To meet these rules is a VRY rover, says Smith. Those who do just a little bit more than measuring their business and keeping their hands on themselves can’t inspire praise, but they can punish him for what they do, or for what they don’t.
On the other hand, if they want to do more than just want to avoid being aggressively vicious people, what about the rules they should follow? If you want to be a integral person with a good personality, what kind of Kondu rules do you have to follow? Smith said, “The general rules of almost all virtues, the general rules that determine the office of prudence, charity, generosity, gratitude, and friendship are loose and inaccurate in many respects, and acknowledge many exceptions that allow us to fully express our actions, to express rules that appear to find a case that is completely straightforward to them. However, this rule appears to be loose and inaccurate to the highest degree, and to acknowledge the 10 TRUSAND exceptions.”
And this leads to analogy with Smith’s writing rules. Smith says that the rules of justice must be followed to avoid being proactively threatened. “It may be compared to grammar rules,” “It is accurate, accurate, essential.” You either used the right tension or did not. You matched your subject with your verb, or you did not. But simply producing grammatically correct writing will not make you a great writer, like “sitting still and not doing anything.” However, in the field of writing, “when critics lie down [rules] “For the arrival of sublime and elegant compositions,” we “give us a general idea of perfection that is vague, indeterminate, and to aim for it. This applies to noble behaviors too – rules and guidelines that we may explicitly formulate are loose, vague, and indeterminate.
One of the most respected writers of the 20th century was George Orwell. In one of his more famous essays, politics and English, Orwell tried to put forward clear and straightforward rules on how to improve the quality of his writing. Use SX rules. Here are the first five:
Yo. Do not use audio speculum, direct mile, or Ohar figures that are used to viewing in printed matter.
ii. Do not use long words.
iii. If you can’t cut out a word, always cut it out.
IV. Do not use passives that allow active use.
v. If you can always think of the equivalent of English, don’t use foreign languages, scientific language, or technical terms.
Se seems to be a rust-like rule in grammar – needs and actions. So Orwell cracked the chords and created clear rules for sublime and elegant composition? no. His final rules are:
vi. Break any of these rules faster than you say something completely wild.
What Orwell could do was say, “We will improve the quality of writing according to these rules, but if following them produces poor writing, we will just break the rules.” Even his rules of breaking the rules are not VRY specific – writing a bit of “Barbarou” is certainly a loose, vague, and indeterminate guideline. To be clear, I think this is to Orwell’s achievement – I’d gather his incompetence and create rules that I’ve always worked for, and therefore his rules will not be treated as sacred or unbreakable.
Also interesting is that, like Smith, Orwell expects people to collect good and bad writing. Orwell’s ultimate injunction is to break the rules when they produce bad writing. But how do you know how to construct bad writing? The answer is not whether the writing matches the rules – if so, Orwell’s final rules make no sense. Orwell, like Smith, understood that rules were nothing more than an incomplete attempt to independently do not exist – and that phenomenon determines rust rather than rust.
