Other words used in variable meanings, in most cases more or less dishonestly, are: class , totalitarian , science , progressive , reactionary , bourgeois , equality. Now that I have made this catalogue of swindles and perversions, let me give another example of the kind of writing that they lead to. This time it must of its nature be an imaginary one. I am going to translate a passage of good English into modern English of the worst sort.
Here is a well-known verse from Ecclesiastes :. 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 favour to men of skill; but time and chance happeneth to them all. Objective considerations of contemporary phenomena compels 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.
This is a parody, but not a very gross one. Exhibit 3 above, for instance, contains several patches of the same kind of English. It will be seen that I have not made a full translation. The whole tendency of modern prose is away from concreteness. Now analyse these two sentences a little more closely.
The first contains 49 words but only 60 syllables, and all its words are those of everyday life. The second contains 38 words of 90 syllables: 18 of its words are from Latin roots, and one from Greek. The second contains not a single fresh, arresting phrase, and in spite of its 90 syllables it gives only a shortened version of the meaning contained in the first.
Yet without a doubt it is the second kind of sentence that is gaining ground in modern English. I do not want to exaggerate. This kind of writing is not yet universal, and outcrops of simplicity will occur here and there in the worst-written page. Still if you or I were told to write a few lines on the uncertainty of human fortunes, we should probably come much nearer to my imaginary sentence than to the one from Ecclesiastes. As I have tried to show, modern writing at its worst does not consist in picking out words for the sake of their meaning and inventing images in order to make the meaning clearer.
It consists in gumming together long strips of words which have already been set in order by someone else, and making the results presentable by sheer humbug. The attraction of this way of writing is that it is easy. It is easier — even quicker, once you have the habit — to say In my opinion it is not an unjustifiable assumption that than to say I think.
When you are composing in a hurry — when you are dictating to a stenographer, for instance, or making a public speech — it is natural to fall into a pretentious, latinized style. Tags like a consideration which we should do well to bear in mind or a conclusion to which all of us would readily assent will save many a sentence from coming down with a bump.
By using stale metaphors, similes and idioms, you save much mental effort, at the cost of leaving your meaning vague, not only for your reader but for yourself. This is the significance of mixed metaphors. The sole aim of a metaphor is to call up a visual image. When these images clash — as in The Fascist octopus has sung its swan song , the jackboot is thrown into the melting pot — it can be taken as certain that the writer is not seeing a mental image of the objects he is naming; in other words he is not really thinking.
Look again at the examples I gave at the beginning of this essay. Professor Laski 1 uses five negatives in 53 words. One of these is superfluous, making nonsense of the whole passage, and in addition there is the slip alien for akin, making further nonsense, and several avoidable pieces of clumsiness which increase the general vagueness. Professor Hogben 2 plays ducks and drakes with a battery which is able to write prescriptions, and, while disapproving of the everyday phrase put up with , is unwilling to look egregious up in the dictionary and see what it means.
In 4 the writer knows more or less what he wants to say, but an accumulation of stale phrases chokes him like tea-leaves blocking a sink. In 5 words and meaning have almost parted company. People who write in this manner usually have a general emotional meaning — they dislike one thing and want to express solidarity with another — but they are not interested in the detail of what they are saying.
A scrupulous writer, in every sentence that he writes, will ask himself at least four questions, thus: What am I trying to say? What words will express it?
What image or idiom will make it clearer? Is this image fresh enough to have an effect? And he will probably ask himself two more: Could I put it more shortly? Have I said anything that is avoidably ugly? Many of the examples of bad and deceptive writing in English would show up again in He wants to show how "Party fundamentalist" and propagandist take advantage of peoples imaginations using these tricks.
Another device that Orwell talks about is using Latin, Greek, Russian and French words to keep from having to clearly express your point. This was a favorite device of Marxists, and while he was socialist himself, he was no lover of Soviet propaganda much less the Soviet Union itself.
While I do think that using foreign words ad hoc nauseam I could have easily have said haphazardly-which is also foreign is a problem, today's globalized world may now have made more exceptions to this rule.
Orwell discourages using the word cul-de-sac because it is a French word and there are already Anglo-Saxon words for it e. Tolkien went further in his criticism of "cul-de-sac" and names the Hobbits "Bag End" which is the literal translation of cul-de-sac.
Orwell offer some advice to help us not make these errors? Orwell offers a set of questions we should ask ourselves: " A scrupulous writer, in every sentence that he writes, will ask himself at least four questions, thus: 1. What am I trying to say? What words will express it? What image or idiom will make it clearer? Is this image fresh enough to have an effect? And he will probably ask himself two more: 1. Could I put it more shortly?
Have I said anything that is avoidably ugly? But you are not obliged to go to all this trouble. You can shirk it by simply throwing your mind open and letting the ready-made phrases come crowding in. They will construct your sentences for you -- even think your thoughts for you, to a certain extent -- and at need they will perform the important service of partially concealing your meaning even from yourself. It is at this point that the special connection between politics and the debasement of language becomes clear.
I think the following rules will cover most cases: i Never use a metaphor, simile, or other figure of speech which you are used to seeing in print. These rules sound elementary, and so they are, but they demand a deep change of attitude in anyone who has grown used to writing in the style now fashionable. Also, barbarous is a Greek word. In the future, I will try to put Orwell's advice to practice and try to catch myself when making these mistakes.
Ironically enough, in the middle of the essay he point out that he has been making some of the mistakes that he criticizes as a testament to how pervasive this problem is.
I hope this gives me even a slight edge in my work for next semester. I should note that Orwell is not talking about simply banning word or phrases, but to carefully recognize what we are actually saying and to be very mindful of every single word we use.
If you simplify your English, you are freed from the worst follies of orthodoxy. You cannot speak any of the necessary dialects, and when you make a stupid remark its stupidity will be obvious, even to yourself.
Political language -- and with variations this is true of all political parties, from Conservatives to Anarchists -- is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind. One cannot change this all in a moment, but one can at least change one's own habits, and from time to time one can even, if one jeers loudly enough, send some worn-out and useless phrase -- some jackboot, Achilles' heel, hotbed, melting pot, acid test, veritable inferno , or other lump of verbal refuse -- into the dustbin, where it belongs.
View 2 comments. Apr 11, Vipassana rated it liked it Shelves: history , essays , politics-policy , non-fiction. Fresh on the heels of , I read Will Self's shoddy argument against all things Orwell replete with every logical fallacy in the book. Considering what a short essay this is, it seemed like a good time to read it. Orwell's rules for writing here are specifically with respect to politics and not the literary use of language.
He states it so clearly that it's surprising how anyone could think otherwise. Orwell even confesses that he tends to do the same things that he writes against in this essay Fresh on the heels of , I read Will Self's shoddy argument against all things Orwell replete with every logical fallacy in the book.
Orwell even confesses that he tends to do the same things that he writes against in this essay. Orwell knows the value of nuance and that's not what he opposes, it is deliberate misinformation through vagueness and familiar imagery that he is against. A passage will assume a domineering quality if littered with jargon or if one uses metaphor the way I just used the word "littered".
The impact of the passive voice, ornate language and dense vocabulary on political commentary is that it enables a person to exercise doublethink, where an idea can be right when applied to one thing and wrong to when applied to another thing. It seems that this goes against the subjective acceptance of right and wrong but that isn't the case here.
Orwell gives his five rules at the end of his essay. He's taken a few bad phrases and brought out the reasons that they're harmful in political commentary or helpful depending on which side of the situation you are. He's then gone on to generate rules, to be used as a guide more than a rulebook, to ensure political text doesn't deceive.
The reason that I haven't included them in this review is because it take the rules out of context. Orwell clearly states that the rules are for when instinct fails. He doesn't state anywhere that they are hard and fast, to be followed with unerring precision as Will Self suggests. Recognising that is essential when reading this essay.
To readers who want to know when language is deceiving you, highly recommended. View all 16 comments. Jun 06, Nisreen rated it really liked it Shelves: favourites , nonfic. One of the greatest essays I have ever read about the relation between language and politics. A must-read for writers, and any one interested in deconstructing political discourse. Orwell's precise, clear and simple language is an example of how theoretical and political discourse should be rather than the meaningless and pretentious endless formations of misused jargon we encounter nowadays in newspapers and books.
Feb 17, Joey rated it it was ok Shelves: essays , writing. Sentence 1 : I had this burning sensation of shame while absorbing myself in this essay. Sentence 2 : I was ashamed of myself while reading this essay. Which sentence do you find easier to understand? This essay is like a simple term paper with objective analyses and conclusions. First, he presented five passages he picked from articles. Second, he discussed the theories of phraseology. Third, to understand the theories he discussed , he applied them to real situations in modern English.
Finally, he drew his own conclusion. Orwell argued that it is important we write clearly. He believed that the main purpose of writing is to express and share our ideas and thoughts with readers. Also, he pointed out that writing English is worth reading without using metaphors, similes, idioms, or obsolete words which vague the meanings of our sentences.
Rather, we can simplify them in the sense that we understand what we really think of a certain thing. Orwell may have some points.
However, affected I am, I want to raise some questions, intentionally to rebut his ideas: 1 If Orwell believed with the conjunction of other educated grammarians and writers as well that we should not use the words he mentioned in the essay , what are the words coined for?
Are we going to throw them into a dust bin? How about the jargons or the technical terms? What is a universal literature? What is a real classic? How could laymen recognize that a piece is a masterpiece?
Everybody has different tastes for literature. For ordinary readers, a simple book is enough. May be for entertainment value. But for readers whose intentions are the same: to develop their intelligence, they elevate literature to a higher level of thinking.
That is the art of writing. It depends on what kinds of readers a writer targets. Besides, readers are not inside the box; they can explore the world of literature. Literature is flexible in character. May be I would agree with his points that sometimes we have to consider the meanings of words.
Are these words applicable to situations? Probably yes or no. Could people still understand them? No doubt. Orwell knew the psychology and mathematics of words.
He understood what people think of the words used in society- let alone in politics. So what is this essay all about after all? I would believe that what he really wants to point out in this essay is that connection with readers is the most important elements of writing regardless of what concept you have got.
He manifested this belief in his works. Mostly, politics is bad when the language is corrupt as it is the conspicuous undertone of his essays. View all 15 comments. Jan 21, Adam Ford rated it really liked it. Dec 28, Mia rated it it was ok Shelves: nonfiction , had-to-read-for-class.
People love this essay and frankly I have no idea why; it is densely written, painfully abstruse, obnoxiously drawn-out. But then he goes and pulls shit like and this dung pile and I'm left wondering.
Defensel "In our time, political speech and writing are largely the defense of the indefensible. Defenseless villages are bombarded from the air, the inhabitants driven out into the countryside, the cattle machine-gunned, the huts set on fire with incendiary bullets: this is called pacification. Mar 08, George Ilsley rated it it was amazing Shelves: modern-classic , writing , re-read , non-fiction.
This short essay by George Orwell is as relevant today as it was when he wrote it in Alarmed at the debasement of language, at the use of words divorced from any meaning, this essay howls into the wind — but the storm of propaganda and corporate speak the foggy meaningless bafflegab of memos and public relations has continued unabated.
The writer either has a meaning and cannot express it, or he inadvertently says something else, or he is almost indifferent as to whether his words mean anything or not. This mixture of vagueness and sheer incompetence is the most marked characteristic of modern English prose, and especially of any kind of political writing. As soon as certain topics are raised, the concrete melts into the abstract and no one seems able to think of turns of speech that are not hackneyed: prose consists less and less of words chosen for the sake of their meaning, and more and more of phrases tacked together like the sections of a prefabricated hen-house.
I list below various of the tricks by means of which the work of prose-construction is habitually dodged:. Dying metaphors. But in between these two classes there is a huge dump of worn-out metaphors which have lost all evocative power and are merely used because they save people the trouble of inventing phrases for themselves. Operators, or verbal false limbs. Characteristic phrases are: render inoperative, militate against, prove unacceptable, make contact with, be subjected to, give rise to, give grounds for, have the effect of, play a leading part role in, make itself felt, serve the purpose of, etc.
The keynote is the elimination of simple verbs. Instead of being a single word, such as break, stop, spoil, mend, kill, a verb becomes a phrase, made up of a noun or adjective tacked on to some general-purposes verb such as prove, serve, form, play, render.
In addition, the passive voice is wherever possible used in preference to the active, and noun constructions are used instead of gerunds by examination of instead of by examining. The range of verbs is further cut down by means of the -ize and de- formations, and banal statements are given an appearance of profundity by means of the not un- formation.
Simple conjunctions and prepositions are replaced by such phrases as with res feet to, the fact that, in view of, in the interests of, on the hypothesis that ;and the ends of sentences are saved from anti-climax by such refunding commonplaces as greatly to be desired, cannot be left out of account, a development to be expected in the near future, deserving of serious consideration, brought to a satisfactory conclusion, etc.
Pretentious diction. Adjectives like epoch-making, epic, historic, unforgettable, triumphant, inevitable, inexorable, veritable, are used to dignify the sordid processes of international politics, whilewriting that aims at glorifying war usually takes on anarchaic color, its characteristic words being: realm, throne, chariot, trident, sword, shield, banner, jackboot, clarion.
Foreign words and expressions such as cul de sac, ancient regime, deus ex machina, status quo, gleichschaltung, weltanschauung, are used to give an air of culture andelegance. Except for the useful abbreviations i. Bad writers, andespecially scientific, political and sociological writers, arenearly always haunted by the notion that Latin or Greekwords are grander than Saxon ones, and unnecessary wordslike expedite, ameliorate, predict, extraneous, clandestine, subaqueous and hundreds of others constantly gain ground from their Anglo-Saxon opposite numbers.
The jargon peculiar to Marxist writing hyena, hangman, cannibal, petty bourgeois, lackeys, flunkey, mad dog. White Guard, etc. The result, in general, is an increase in slovenliness and vagueness. Meaningless words. Skip to main content. Remedy of Six Rules Orwell said it was easy for his contemporaries to slip into bad writing of the sort he had described and that the temptation to use meaningless or hackneyed phrases was like a "packet of aspirins always at one's elbow".
Never use a metaphor, simile, or other figure of speech which you are used to seeing in print. Examples that Orwell gave included "ring the changes", "Achilles' heel", "swan song", and "hotbed".
0コメント