Most people who know George Orwell’s work know about his 1946 essay.politics and english”(Published here), in which he decries careless, confusing, and unclear prose. “Our civilization is decadent,” he claims, “and our language…must inevitably join in the general collapse.” The examples Orwell cites are all guilty of various counts of “staleness of images” and “lack of precision.”
Orwell argues that, ultimately, bad writing stems from corrupt thinking, often attempting to make corrupt practices more palatable. His examples of colonialism, forced expulsions, and bombing campaigns have immediate parallels in our time. Pay attention to how the next article, interview, or book you read uses “politically sympathetic” language to make a terrible situation worse.
Orwell’s analysis identifies several causes that obscure meaning and lead to entire paragraphs of pretentious and empty prose.
dying metaphor: Essentially a cliché, it “has lost all evocative power and is used simply to save people the trouble of coming up with the phrase themselves.”
Operator or Oral Prosthesis: These are redundant and clumsy structures instead of single, simple words. Examples he gives include “show a tendency to”, “serve the purpose of”, “play a leading role in”, and “have the effect of”. (When I was teaching English composition, one thing that particularly irritated me was changing the much simpler “because” to “because of the fact.”)
exaggerated language: Orwell identifies a number of words that are used to “embellish simple statements and lend scientific impartiality to biased judgments.” He also includes in this category “terminology peculiar to Marxist texts” (‘petty bourgeois’, ‘lazy’, ‘whimsical’, ‘hyena’).
meaningless words: Abstractions such as “romantic,” “plastic,” “values,” “human,” and “sentimental” are used “in the sense that not only do they not point to discoverable objects, but they hardly expect the reader to do so.” Orwell also condemns political buzzwords such as “democracy,” “socialism,” “freedom,” “patriotism,” “justice,” and “fascism,” each of which has “several different meanings that cannot be reconciled with one another.”
Most readers of Orwell’s essays will inevitably point out that Orwell himself is guilty of some of the flaws he finds in others, but with a little self-reflection he will find the same flaws in his own writing. Anyone who writes in an organizational context, whether it’s academia, journalism, or the corporate world, picks up all sorts of bad habits that need to be intentionally broken. Orwell promises that the “process” of developing bad writing habits “can be reversed if you are willing to go through the necessary pains.” How should I proceed? The rules Orwell suggests are:
(i) Never use metaphors, similes, or other figures of speech that are familiar to you in print.
(ii) Never use long words when a short one would suffice.
(iii) Always cut out words if you can.
(iv) Never use the passive where you can use the active.
(v) Never use foreign language phrases, scientific terms, technical terms, etc. unless you can think of an equivalent in everyday English.
(vi) Please break these rules before saying something blatantly barbaric.
He does not say exactly what constitutes “utterly barbaric” language. As the internet cliche goes, “your mileage may vary.” Maybe we can find creative ways to break these rules without getting confusing or justifying mass murder.
But Orwell prefaces his guidelines with some very sound advice: “Perhaps it is better to use words as little as possible and to understand the meaning as clearly as possible through pictures and sensations. Then one can make a choice, not simply choose.” accept— is the phrase that best covers its meaning. ” This exercise not only brings you closer to using clear, concrete, concrete language, but it also results in writing that anchors the reader in the world of sensations that we all share to some extent, rather than the fluffy world of abstract thoughts and beliefs that we don’t share.
These “elementary” rules do not cover “the literary use of language,” Orwell wrote, and that “language is merely a tool for expression, not for concealing or hindering thought.” In the nearly 80 years since his essay, the quality of English prose has probably not improved, but writing guides of all kinds are now easily accessible. Those who value clarity of thought and the responsible use of rhetoric would do well to consult them frequently and: Read or reread Orwell’s essays.
Note: An earlier version of this post appeared on our site in 2016.
Related content:
10 Writing Tips from Legendary Writing Teacher William Zinsser
Stephen King’s 20 Rules for Writers
VS Naipaul creates a list of 7 rules for beginning writers
Nietzsche’s 10 Rules for Stylish Writing
josh jones I’m a writer and musician based in Durham, North Carolina.
Source: Open Culture – www.openculture.com
