Good writing stands out; you hear a distinct voice when you read it. The agent is just right, meeting the needs of the story. The paper stays within the reader for a while and makes the reader feel richer when reading. Good writing makes the reader want to read more.
The verse below from Ecclesiastes 9:11 was used in George Orwell's book Why I Write as an example of "good writing." Then, Orwell wrote a more modern approach to the verse, saying the same thing: the current is not better.
The Ecclesiastes verse stands out as well written compared to what Orwell presented as a more modern approach of that day. It was a rewritten version written as a parody of the original verse designed to ridicule the bloated writing of his day. The important message is that simplicity is better, and it helps if you know what you mean so you can clearly say it.
See Both Verses Below.
Ecclesiastes 9:11, King James Version
“I returned and saw under the sun that the race is not to the swift, nor the battle to the strong, neither yet bread to the wise, nor yet riches to men of understanding, nor yet favor to men of skill; but time and chance happeneth to them all.”
George Orwell’s parody in what he called more modern prose. (not a compliment)
“Objective considerations of contemporary phenomena compel the conclusion that success or failure in competitive activities exhibits no tendency to be commensurate with innate capacity, but that a considerable element of the unpredictable must invariably be taken into account.”
The original verse is well written and says what it says so very, very well. Then, on the other hand, is what this verse says correct? Is it true that here on earth, under the sun, the efforts of men are dependent on chance and time for those efforts to make a difference? Is it logical to draw any conclusions from “objective conclusions about contemporary phenomena”? Are not those conclusions and phenomena aggregates of experience, and do they even exist in singular form?
Many whose "stars shine bright" and who have the limelight are no better or wiser than many who do not. Some luck and timing make a lot of difference. On the other hand, so many define their journey through life as part of a "plan.” Trials are part of the plan. Setbacks are thought of as part of the plan. So what about time and chance? Does the fact that the original verse suggests that everyone will get time and chance make it all ok?
Did the writer of Ecclesiastes successfully communicate what was meant? Does it mean the writer failed if it is interpreted differently by different readers?
Quotes from Authors about the Meaning of Their Writing
“I didn't fail the test; I just found 100 ways to do it wrong” -Benjamin Franklin, 1706 -1790. Based on the quote by Franklin, I would suspect that he would come down on the side of "a plan" rather than feeling that time and chance rendered the 100 failures of no worth.
“In the depths of winter, I finally learned there was in me an invincible summer." -Albert Camus, 1913 – 1957. It looks like Camus figured there was a plan since his challenges were labeled "depths of winter," which seemed to prove something of worth to him.
The difficulty of literature is not writing but writing what you mean."
-Robert Louis Stevenson, 1850 - 1894.
