Politics and the English Language: George Orwell 'sheds light' on my love of dying metaphors

I wasn’t sure what I was going to think of this week’s reading. Its format is not particularly aesthetically pleasing; thirteen pages of long paragraphs having something to do with politics. Then I started reading. Taking two writing classes this quarter I am learning about the inflation of language and that the best way to avoid it is to be aware of it. Though I don’t follow politics regularly, I am familiar with Orwell’s description of ‘vague’ and ‘pretentious’ language used by those in positions of power. How they try to cover up mistakes and blur reality by calling innocent deaths “elimination of unreliable elements.” If politicians are doing this on purpose, and respected writers like George Orwell are making the public aware of it, why has nothing changed since this article was written in 1946?

I was particularly intrigued by Orwell’s comment that politicians often come off like “some kind of dummy,” because they don’t write their own speeches and therefore don’t connect with them. They haven’t come up with these words and ideas themselves. At best they probably only have a vague idea of what they are saying, which may explain their inability to provide clear answers to follow up questions or pronounce words (like Bush’s ‘nucular’ instead of ‘nuclear’) correctly. While reading the article, I was reminded how important it is that our generation, and the ones to follow, learn to write and speak effectively. If we continue to follow the patterns Orwell describes, like “dying metaphors, verbal false limbs, pretentious diction, and meaningless words,” English could go the same direction as our current economy. (I was going to say ‘down the toilet,’ but that would be a hypocritical because it's a dying metaphor.)

Orwell admitting that he is guilty of the mistakes he is writing about made me respect his authority even more. He is not trying to put himself above anyone. He is honest in saying that these mistakes are so common even he has made them. Just in writing this post I have caught myself wanting to use commonplace metaphors without trying to think of more vivid, unique images. There are probably phrases just sentences above that are in need of fixing, but I’ll leave them for example’s sake. For future writing I will add Orwell’s rules to my revision list; not using cliché and overused figure of speech, long words or phrases just to fill space, pretentious foreign and jargon words, or passive voice. While my academic, 10 page requirement, research essays may sometimes require a few of these tricks, I hope to keep my fiction and creative nonfiction free from these issues and ‘clear as a bell’ (just kidding!).

-Katie Huffman

George Orwell's 'Politics and the English Language'

This reading made me laugh a few times, but I don't know if Orwell meant for the piece to be funny. I think maybe he did (in a few places, anyway!). As someone who is not hugely interested in politics--mainly because I don't know much about what's going on in the world of politics--the title of this essay didn't initially attract my attention. I thought it was going to be boring. To my pleasant surprise, I really enjoyed reading it because I can identify with what Orwell talks about here: he is lambasting the use of unnecessarily complex phrases and words. Until now, I thought that I was stupid to not understand political speeches, dull religious works, and other seemingly super-intelligent, highly complex forms of written and oral communication. Orwell makes me feel better about not understanding what people try to say when they complicate the English language to the point of obscurity. 


There are two great things Orwell does in this essay that make it more than just a rant: first, he gives ample reason for his disgust with the modern (or 'fashionable') English language and then shows the audience how to improve upon that 'slovenly' way of writing and speaking. He is being a smart writer here and is making sure that the problem is fixed--he is not simply complaining in order to vent. Second, he admits that he, too, commits these atrocious acts of awful English--even within this very essay! I admire his vulnerability in admitting this to us. Up until the point where he says this, I found myself searching for examples of 'fashionable English' within his essay, simply to prove him wrong or perhaps hypocritical. At first I thought Orwell was being insanely critical, and I figured it was nearly impossible for him to write in the perfect manner he so ardently desired for others to write (and speak) with. He won my admiration (and satisfaction) with his confession to probably using the same type of English he so obviously hates. 


I love the imagery that Orwell uses in this essay. It is fresh and funny, and it contrasts wonderfully with the stale metaphors he lists for us and keeps us interested and intrigued. Some of my favorites were: "like a cuttlefish spurting out ink" (10) and "fall upon the facts like soft snow" (9). As far as I know, these are original phrases and they give clear meaning to what he is trying to get across. I also enjoyed his modernizing of the verse in Ecclesiastes--not only was it a splendidly clear example of how badly we twist and muddle the English language, it was hilarious! In spite of all the humorous ways in which Orwell illustrates his points, he uses serious examples, as well--not just funny ones, which is the mark of a great writer. The examples of convenient euphemisms on page 9 touched me the most, and I realized that these 'cover-ups' in English are a huge part of what obscures politics and makes political language incredibly impersonal and objective (and therefore dull and uninteresting--to me, at least). 


We spoke in class about the attractive nature of lists, and Orwell certainly uses many lists! They help his meaning become and remain clear, and give us succinct, direct examples of what could be long-winded explanations. Orwell's simple rules for abolishing our sloppy language are short and to the point, and if we keep them in mind, we can write and speak in ways that allow for, as Orwell says, "expressing and not for concealing or preventing thought" (12). I'm glad we read this essay, but now I know I will really be reading my writing critically and searching for useless words and sour metaphors. I suppose--no, I know that is a good thing and it will allow me to become a better, more meaningful writer. 


Laura Strawn Ojeda


P.S. I'm sorry if this blog appears twice somewhere in the sphere of our class blog--I'm new to blogs and they confuse me a little bit! 

Four Highlights from "Politics and the English Language"

There were a few interesting things I drew from this article. These are my highlights:

1) A decline in the English language would affect non-English speakers--that is, the rest of the world. If George Orwell was--and continues to be--right "that the English language is in a bad way" and that it's only getting worse, we have a lot to fear. Because, as Orwell says, language, politics, and economics are related, and each affects the other--often for the worse. If the English language is falling, it will only pull down the rest of the world; like it or not, English is becoming a world language of sorts. Many desire to learn it, mostly for economic reasons. I've met many who either want to learn English themselves, or hope their kids pick it up so that they "live a better life." Honestly, I didn’t see a clear argument as to how economics and language are related in this essay. But if they are, it would be odd that people’s pursuit of a better life through the English language would actually take away from the world as a whole.

2) It’s inherent that an author writing about the declining state of the English language believes himself to be, at least in part, above the very vices he points out. Right? This was my first reaction. Who does George Orwell think he is to be an authority on this subject? Orwell must believe himself to be a good author. And, well, he is. He knows this and he knows others know this. If he weren’t, he wouldn’t be renowned. If he weren’t, this essay would have been forgotten. If he weren’t, we would laugh him off as highly pretentious. Toward the end of this essay, he addressed this issue from the side: “Look back through this essay, and for certain you will find that I have again and again committed the very faults I am protesting against.” He’s honest and recognizes his shortcomings. Even though he’s pointing out his faults here, this line only wins him credibility.

3) Orwell calls out some of my own faults in writing, especially when it comes to my academic papers. Enough said.

4) Orwell criticizes political language. I was so glad to see Orwell point his finger at political language: “Political language ... is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidarity to pure wind.” I get frustrated with some of the things politicians say. The outright absurdity of some of it makes me want to yell back at whatever screen I’m watching a speech or address on. Recent experience with a certain North American Division of Seventh-Day Adventists official who refused to give straight answers at a Q & A session is fresh and adds to my willingness to read criticism of politicians.

-Alexander Hirata

Coffee!

I forgot to make an announcement about class coffee. Since we're an early class, I usually brew a pot of coffee. I also bring half and half and sugar. If this sounds interesting to you, then bring a cup and a spoon!

Thanks,

Sari

Welcome!

Blogging is a fairly new medium--and many, many writers have either launched themselves through blogs or use blogs to support/promote their work. Amy Shearn keeps a blog (www.householdwords.wordpress.com/); Malcolm Gladwell of the Tipping Point has a blog (gladwell.typepad.com/gladwellcom/); Kevin Fenton, whose novel Merit Badges won the AWP 2009 fiction award, has a blog (http://eitherthisoranap.com/); Kate Hopper's blog (motherhoodandwords.com) led to a book deal.

Is this all just a fad? Or will it stay? As you can see, if you visit some of these blogs, not every author is faithful about posting. What happens when you don't post?

Is blogging like writerly flossing? You begin diligent (like Julie Powell!), but as the newness wears off, your posts become more sporatic. And what are the advantages of a blog anyway?

Our Writing for Publication blog will probably be more personal--with an audience of 15. You will be posting because you must. And commenting because you must. What I hope, however, is that you come to enjoy a new form of dialogue and start thinking about the possibilities of this new genre, this new and immediate way to publish.

Sari Fordham

P.S. Happy posting!