asking, what is man? what are his needs? how can he best express himself?
one would discover that merely having the power to avoid work and live
one's life from birth to death in electric light and to the tune of
tinned music is not a reason for doing so. Man needs warmth, society,
leisure, comfort and security: he also needs solitude, creative work and
the sense of wonder. If he recognised this he could use the products of
science and industrialism eclectically, applying always the same test:
does this make me more human or less human? He would then learn that the
highest happiness does not lie in relaxing, resting, playing poker,
drinking and making love simultaneously. And the instinctive horror which
all sensitive people feel at the progressive mechanisation of life would
be seen not to be a mere sentimental archaism, but to be fully justified.
For man only stays human by preserving large patches of simplicity in his
life, while the tendency of many modern inventions-in particular the
film, the radio and the aeroplane-is to weaken his consciousness, dull
his curiosity, and, in general, drive him nearer to the animals.
POLITICS AND THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE
Most people who bother with the matter at all would admit that the
English language is in a bad way, but it is generally assumed that we
cannot by conscious action do anything about it. Our civilization is
decadent, and our language--so the argument runs--must inevitably share
in the general collapse. It follows that any struggle against the abuse
of language is a sentimental archaism, like preferring candles to
electric light or hansom cabs to aeroplanes. Underneath this lies the
half-conscious belief that language is a natural growth and not an
instrument which we shape for our own purposes.
Now, it is clear that the decline of a language must ultimately have
political and economic causes: it is not due simply to the bad influence
of this or that individual writer. But an effect can become a cause,
reinforcing the original cause and producing the same effect in an
intensified form, and so on indefinitely. A man may take to drink because
he feels himself to be a failure, and then fail all the more completely
because he drinks. It is rather the same thing that is happening to the
English language. It becomes ugly and inaccurate because our thoughts are
foolish, but the slovenliness of our language makes it easier for us to
have foolish thoughts. The point is that the process is reversible.
Modern English, especially written English, is full of bad habits which
spread by imitation and which can be avoided if one is willing to take
the necessary trouble. If one gets rid of these habits one can think more
clearly, and to think clearly is a necessary first step towards political
regeneration: so that the fight against bad English is not frivolous and
is not the exclusive concern of professional writers. I will come back to
this presently, and I hope that by that time the meaning of what I have
said here will have become clearer. Meanwhile, here are five specimens of
the English language as it is now habitually written.
These five passages have not been picked out because they are especially
bad--I could have quoted far worse if I had chosen--but because they
illustrate various of the mental vices from which we now suffer. They are
a little below the average, but are fairly representative samples. I
number them so that I can refer back to them when necessary:
(1) I am not, indeed, sure whether it is not true to say that the Milton
who once seemed not unlike a seventeenth-century Shelley had not become,
out of an experience ever more bitter in each year, more alien (sic) to
the founder of that Jesuit sect which nothing could induce him to
tolerate.
PROFESSOR HAROLD LASKI (Essay in FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION)
(2) Above all, we cannot play ducks and drakes with a native battery of
idioms which prescribes such egregious collocations of vocables as the
Basic PUT UP WITH for TOLERATE or PUT AT A LOSS for BEWILDER.
PROFESSOR LANCELOT HOGBEN (INTERGLOSSA)
(3) On the one side we have the free personality; by definition it is not
neurotic, for it has neither conflict nor dream. Its desires, such as
they are, are transparent, for they are just what institutional approval
keeps in the forefront of consciousness; another institutional pattern
would alter their number and intensity; there is little in them that is
natural, irreducible, or culturally dangerous. But ON THE OTHER SIDE, the
social bond itself is nothing but the mutual reflection of these
self-secure integrities. Recall the definition of love. Is not this the
very picture of a small academic? Where is there a place in this hall of
mirrors for either personality or fraternity?
Essay on psychology in POLITICS (New York)
(4) All the "best people" from the gentlemen's clubs, and all the frantic
fascist captains, united in common hatred of Socialism and bestial horror
of the rising tide of the mass revolutionary movement, have turned to
acts of provocation, to foul incendiarism, to medieval legends of
poisoned wells, to legalize their own destruction of proletarian
organizations, and rouse the agitated petty-bourgeoisie to chauvinistic
fervor on behalf of the fight against the revolutionary way out of the
crisis.
Communist pamphlet
(5) If a new spirit is to be infused into this old country, there is one
thorny and contentious reform which must be tackled, and that is the
humanization and galvanization of the B.B.C. Timidity here will bespeak
canker and atrophy of the soul. The heart of Britain may lee sound and of
strong beat, for instance, but the British lion's roar at present is like
that of Bottom in Shakespeare's MIDSUMMER NIGHT'S DREAM--as gentle as any
sucking dove. A virile new Britain cannot continue indefinitely to be
traduced in the eyes, or rather ears, of the world by the effete languors
of Langham Place, brazenly masquerading as "standard English." When the
Voice of Britain is heard at nine o'clock, better far and infinitely less
ludicrous to hear aitches honestly dropped than the present priggish,
inflated, inhibited, school-ma'am-ish arch braying of blameless bashful
mewing maidens.
Letter in TRIBUNE
Each of these passages has faults of its own, but quite apart from
avoidable ugliness, two qualities are common to all of them. The first is
staleness of imagery; the other is lack of precision. 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
&n
bsp; like the sections of a prefabricated hen-house. I list below, with notes
and examples, various of the tricks by means of which the work of
prose-construction is habitually dodged:
DYING METAPHORS. A newly-invented metaphor assists thought by evoking a
visual image, while on the other hand a metaphor which is technically
"dead" (e.g., IRON RESOLUTION) has in effect reverted to being an
ordinary word and can generally be used without loss of vividness. 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. Examples are:
RING THE CHANGES ON, TAKE UP THE CUDGELS FOR, TOE THE LINE, RIDE
ROUGHSHOD OVER, STAND SHOULDER TO SHOULDER WITH, PLAY INTO THE HANDS OF,
AN AXE TO GRIND, GRIST TO THE MILL, FISHING IN TROUBLED WATERS, ON THE
ORDER OF THE DAY, ACHILLES' HEEL, SWAN SONG, HOTBED. Many of these are
used without knowledge of their meaning (what is a "rift," for
instance?), and incompatible metaphors are frequently mixed, a sure sign
that the writer is not interested in what he is saying. Some metaphors
now current have been twisted out of their original meaning without those
who use them even being aware of the fact. For example, TOE THE LINE is
sometimes written TOW THE LINE. Another example is THE HAMMER AND THE
ANVIL, now always used with the implication that the anvil gets the worst
of it. In real life it is always the anvil that breaks the hammer, never
the other way about: a writer who stopped to think what he was saying
would be aware of this, and would avoid perverting the original phrase.
OPERATORS, or VERBAL FALSE LIMBS. These save the trouble of picking out
appropriate verbs and nouns, and at the same time pad each sentence with
extra syllables which give it an appearance of symmetry. Characteristic
phrases are: RENDER INOPERATIVE, MILITATE AGAINST, PROVE UNACCEPTABLE,
MAKE CONTACT WITH, BE SUBJECTED TO, GIVE RISE TO, GIVE GROUNDS FOR,
HAVING THE EFFECT OF, PLAY A LEADING PART (R�LE) IN, MAKE ITSELF FELT,
TAKE EFFECT, EXHIBIT A TENDENCY TO, SERVE THE PURPOSE OF, etc., 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 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 RESPECT TO, HAVING
REGARD TO, THE FACT THAT, BY DINT OF, IN VIEW OF, IN THE INTERESTS OF, ON
THE HYPOTHESIS THAT; and the ends of sentences are saved from anti-climax
by such resounding 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,
and so on and so forth.
PRETENTIOUS DICTION. Words like PHENOMENON, ELEMENT, INDIVIDUAL (as
noun), OBJECTIVE, CATEGORICAL, EFFECTIVE, VIRTUAL, BASIS, PRIMARY,
PROMOTE, CONSTITUTE, EXHIBIT, EXPLOIT, UTILIZE, ELIMINATE, LIQUIDATE, are
used to dress up simple statements and give an air of scientific
impartiality to biased judgments. Adjectives like EPOCH-MAKING, EPIC,
HISTORIC, UNFORGETTABLE, TRIUMPHANT, AGE-OLD, INEVITABLE, INEXORABLE,
VERITABLE, are used to dignify the sordid processes of international
politics, while writing that aims at glorifying war usually takes on an
archaic color, its characteristic words being: REALM, THRONE, CHARIOT,
MAILED FIST, TRIDENT, SWORD, SHIELD, BUCKLER, BANNER, JACKBOOT, CLARION.
Foreign words and expressions such as CUL DE SAC, ANCIEN R�GIME, DEUS EX
MACHINA, MUTATIS MUTANDIS, STATUS QUO, GLEICHSCHALTUNG, WELTANSCHAUUNG,
are used to give an air of culture and elegance. Except for the useful
abbreviations I.E., E.G., and ETC., there is no real need for any of the
hundreds of foreign phrases now current in English. Bad writers, and
especially scientific, political and sociological writers, are nearly
always haunted by the notion that Latin or Greek words are grander than
Saxon ones, and unnecessary words like EXPEDITE, AMELIORATE, PREDICT,
EXTRANEOUS, DERACINATED, CLANDESTINE, SUB-AQUEOUS and hundreds of others
constantly gain ground from their Anglo-Saxon opposite numbers. [Note 1,
below] The jargon peculiar to Marxist writing (HYENA, HANGMAN, CANNIBAL,
PETTY BOURGEOIS, THESE GENTRY, LACKEY, FLUNKEY, MAD DOG, WHITE GUARD,
etc.) consists largely of words and phrases translated from Russian,
German or French; but the normal way of coining a new word is to use a
Latin or Greek root with the appropriate affix and, where necessary, the
'-ize' formation. It is often easier to make up words of this kind
(DE-REGIONALIZE, IMPERMISSIBLE, EXTRAMARITAL, NON-FRAGMENTARY and so
forth) than to think up the English words that will cover one's meaning.
The result, in general, is an increase in slovenliness and vagueness.
[Note: 1. An interesting illustration of this is the way in which the
English flower names which were in use till very recently are being
ousted by Greek ones, SNAPDRAGON becoming ANTIRRHINUM, FORGET-ME-NOT
becoming MYOSOTIS, etc. It is hard to see any practical reason for this
change of fashion: it is probably due to an instinctive turning-away
from the more homely word and a vague feeling that the Greek word is
scientific. (Author's footnote.)]
MEANINGLESS WORDS. In certain kinds of writing, particularly in art
criticism and literary criticism, it is normal to come across long
passages which are almost completely lacking in meaning. [Note, below]
Words like ROMANTIC, PLASTIC, VALUES, HUMAN, DEAD, SENTIMENTAL, NATURAL,
VITALITY, as used in art criticism, are strictly meaningless, in the
sense that they not only do not point to any discoverable object, but
are hardly even expected to do so by the reader. When one critic writes,
"The outstanding feature of Mr. X's work is its living quality," while
another writes, "The immediately striking thing about Mr. X's work is
its peculiar deadness," the reader accepts this as a simple difference
of opinion If words like BLACK and WHITE were involved, instead of the
jargon words DEAD and LIVING, he would see at once that language was
being used in an improper way. Many political words are similarly
abused. The word FASCISM has now no meaning except in so far as it
signifies "something not desirable." The words DEMOCRACY, SOCIALISM,
FREEDOM, PATRIOTIC, REALISTIC, JUSTICE, have each of them several
different meanings which cannot be reconciled with one another. In the
case of a word like DEMOCRACY, not only is there no agreed definition,
but the attempt to make one is resisted from all sides. It is almos
t
universally felt that when we call a country democratic we are praising
it: consequently the defenders of every kind of r�gime claim that it is
a democracy, and fear that they might have to stop using the word if it
were tied down to any one meaning. Words of this kind are often used in
a consciously dishonest way. That is, the person who uses them has his
own private definition, but allows his hearer to think he means
something quite different. Statements like MARSHAL P�TAIN WAS A TRUE
PATRIOT, THE SOVIET PRESS IS THE FREEST IN THE WORLD, THE CATHOLIC
CHURCH IS OPPOSED TO PERSECUTION, are almost always made with intent to
deceive. Other words used in variable meanings, in most cases more or
less dishonestly, are: CLASS, TOTALITARIAN, SCIENCE, PROGRESSIVE,
REACTIONARY BOURGEOIS, EQUALITY.
[Note: Example: "Comfort's catholicity of perception and image, strangely
Whitmanesque in range, almost the exact opposite in aesthetic compulsion,
continues to evoke that trembling atmospheric accumulative hinting at a
cruel, an inexorably serene timelessness...Wrey Gardiner scores by
aiming at simple bulls-eyes with precision. Only they are not so simple,
and through this contented sadness runs more than the surface bittersweet
of resignation." (POETRY QUARTERLY.) (Author's footnote.)]
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 favor to men of skill; but time and
chance happeneth.
Here it is in modern English:
Objective consideration 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 beginning and ending
of the sentence follow the original meaning fairly closely, but in the
middle the concrete illustrations--race, battle, bread--dissolve into the
vague phrase "success or failure in competitive activities." This had to
be so, because no modern writer of the kind I am discussing--no one
capable of using phrases like "objective consideration of contemporary
phenomena"--would ever tabulate his thoughts in that precise and detailed
way. The whole tendency of modern prose is away from concreteness. Now
analyze 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 first sentence contains six
vivid images, and only one phrase ("time and chance") that could be
called vague. 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.
Fifty Orwell Essays Page 61
