George Orwell Matters! discussion

Our essay read for June and July is Politics and the English Language by George Orwell. If you do not have this in your collection, it can be read at this link:

https://www.orwellfoundation.com/?s=P...

This is one of George Orwell's most famous and best essays, and suggested by Mark. It is our last essay read before the summer. It should be a great discussion, and I'm sure you will all be aware of our rules, as usual, as you post.

Thank you :)

What are your thoughts? This is one of my favourite essays by George Orwell, and several members have requested that we read it.

His theme about political language selecting words which skew the meaning, is timeless!

I'm just going to pick out a couple of Orwell's points about language. I dislike the NOT 'UN-' formation as much as Orwell! Why would an author write that someone was "not unwell," or something was "not unlike" another, or someone was "not unknown"? I've seen these examples in the past month. The NOT 'UN-' formation does not give information in a clear manner, and we cannot quite think of the double negative as a positive.

Orwell's ideas about euphemisms are very important. Governments can control citizens through language that uses euphemisms to justify colonialism, understate the atrocities of war, and hide the abuse of political prisoners. For example, we have been hearing about the "reeducation" of dissenters by totalitarian governments for years as people were sent to hard labor camps, so the practice of using euphemisms is as common today as it was post-World War II. It's interesting that Orwell invented Newspeak as a fictional means of political tyranny by Big Brother when he wrote his final novel Nineteen Eighty-Four in 1949.

Connie wrote: "I dislike the NOT 'UN-' formation as much as Orwell! Why would an author write that someone was "not unwell," ..."

Yes, it seems deliberately contrived to obscure the immediate meaning, doesn't it?

“A scrupulous writer, in every sentence that he writes, will ask himself at least four questions, thus:
1. What am I trying to say?
2. What words will express it?
3. What image or idiom will make it clearer?
4. Is this image fresh enough to have an effect?

And he will probably ask himself two more:
1. Could I put it more shortly?
2. Have I said anything that is avoidably ugly?

"Not un-" is decidedly ugly!

I also like his points about tired old platitudes and metaphors :)

Mark wrote: “it has become commonplace that what you say need not make any sense at all, as long as you are denigrating some opposing point of view...."

Good point. I think this is likely to happen in any country, and at various levels. lt is a probable result of the vagueness George Orwell referred to. Then it is possible to slip in forceful words for people to latch on to, and you just get a lot of rhetoric. (Just a reminder though, as you know, we are not here to talk about American current and recent politics, nor any other country's, but to take an abstract and objective view.)

How did you feel about the 4 point analysis George Orwell made immediately after your quotation, of how this is achieved?

1. Dying metaphors.
2. Operators, or verbal false limbs.
3. Pretentious diction.
4. Meaningless words.

Do you recognise these? And if so, is it always deliberate, for instance, or do people just slip into the hackneyed phrases without thinking? Do you and I do this ourselves? And if we do, is is unconsciously or are we looking for an effect?

I must just add a sentence by the irritated George Orwell which I particularly enjoyed:

"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." :D

Mark wrote: "I avoid current events news all together..."

That sounds like me Mark! I was just throwing some ideas out there, but you can select other parts of the essay if you like :)

I have to agree. Current events news are so depressing, but we have to know what is going on in the world bad as this is. Wars, killing, in my state, Texas, nineteen children and two teachers were killed by a madman. Sometimes we have to block so much of this out. Hate to think about it.

Everyone ... I know how tempting it is to make this regional, and about the party politics in your country/area, but please resist this if you can so we can have a good discussion about what George Orwell actually says! (Plus we can always move on to examples in other types of language use later.) Thanks :)

I particularly liked this idea:

"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."

So often, even on Goodreads, I will read a lot of impressive-sounding words, and hone them down to just a lot of waffle! People may think that if they use long words it sounds grand and authoritative, and it's necessary to cut through it all to the nitty gritty.

Long words are only necessary for precision, or a specific technical meaning. Yet they give a veneer of sophistication when actually they mean very little. I'm afraid Art books can be some of the worst culprits here :(

As someone who has spent a lot of time putting things in plain English for those whose first language is not English - and more recently simplifying the more excessively prolix Victorian language in some 19th century novels - I am perhaps a bit sensitive to this! I dislike long-windedness. One of the reasons I like George Orwell so much is for his clarity of style.

"it does imply using the fewest and shortest words that will cover one’s meaning. What is above all needed is to let the meaning choose the word, and not the other way about."

I thought this essay was so important. My favorite quote was:

"... the slovenliness of our language makes it easier for us to have foolish thoughts."

We've heard for years how popular media is dumbing us down, but Orwell says specifically why and how to combat it.

And we can each in our small way attempt his clarity of style, as Jean says. Sometimes just a question is all that's needed. For example, if someone is spouting these vague, repeated phrases, just asking them one specific question can turn on a lightbulb somewhere.

It made me think of Hemingway's attempt to write "one true sentence."

Yes! Great observations Kathleen.

A long time ago, I had a teacher who did not believe in using long words to write papers. She believed in coming right to the point, do not use long, fancy words to make people think you are so well educated. Tell it like it is. Make it so people do not have to use a dictionary to read. This is the way George Orwell wrote. Down to the point, the way he wanted people to read his writings. To be able to read and understand.

There is a "Society for Plain English", which operates worldwide, and some government bodies and large organisations ask them to check their documents for clarity. They are given a "crystal mark" stamp if they pass. It began in 1979, with "campaigning against gobbledygook, jargon and misleading public information. We have helped many government departments and other official organisations with their documents, reports and publications. We believe that everyone should have access to clear and concise information."

http://www.plainenglish.co.uk/

I think George Orwell would have approved!

I studied French and German literature in university, and we had to write our papers in those languages, so I kept it simple because I couldn't do anything else-and the professors tried to do the same.
Years later I got my education degree and encountered much of the language that Orwell was talking about. It's everywhere!
I also learned that teachers who write report card comments have to use it. Instead of writing "Your child is constantly disturbing the class", you need to write a long inoffensive sentence that states the same thing,

I agree with those who find "not-un" annoying.
Another thing that's annoying is "at this point in time" instead of "now".

Rosemarie - Perhaps we should compile a dictionary of this redundant verbiage such as "at this point in time", and dedicate it to George Orwell!

I like this plan. It really sounds interesting and worth while.

I'm only partially through the essay but already have enough to say for a posting, I think.

"Our civilization is decadent, and our language must inevitably share in the general collapse.......Underneath this lies the half-conscious belief that language is a natural growth and not an instrument which we shape for our own purposes. "

I am pondering the statement in italics.
Over our history with language, we've naturally grown the language to be what we need or want it to be. The caveman/men who first used a word had to come up with more words to say what he meant and to converse with others, for example.
Therefore, is language not already a natural growth, no matter what direction it takes?
And, therefore, is not this natural growth an extension of us using language as an instrument for our own purposes?

Therefore, is not the natural growth of language as our society changes not us using the language for our purpose?

It seems to me, if I'm understanding this quote, that Orwell doesn't believe in natural language changes as a course of adaptation to changes in Society or the World.

As language adapts with the changes of our World, is that not using language as an instrument for our purposes?

"It (the English Language) becomes ugly and inaccurate because our thoughts are foolish, but the slovenliness of our language makes it easier for us to have foolish thoughts"

There is a downward spiral here. With inaccurate written words, the ideas are dumbed down, which leads to less discussion/thought/understanding. Over time, the deeper meanings and implications are lost and ideas/thoughts/actions/discoveries/understanding are dumbed down. The expansion of our minds is curtailed. New developments, ideas and such may never happen if our thoughts turn "foolish" because of "inaccuracies" in language.

I can see what he's getting at here. We need accuracy and focus to see and understand and learn.



To shorten and paraphrase the next sentences after the one in quotes above:
"Written English is full of bad habits. If one gets rid of these habits, one can think more clearly."

Hi Petra,

Yes, I see what you're getting at. One of the problems some people have is in thinking language is set in stone, whereas of course, as you say, it is changing and developing all the time, to suit our changing lives. Sometimes I will find myself saying a sentence - perhaps it has the word "google" or "website" in it, for instance - and realise that it would have made no sense at all a couple of decades ago. And I'm sure I have a far smaller vocabulary to do with nature; the names of plants, working the land etc., than my ancestors did. I don't think George Orwell would question or dispute this ever-changing development of language, just as we don't ourselves.

What George Orwell seems to be criticising is the loose, inaccurate way we use English when there are more precise terms. He goes on to say "an effect can become a cause", and talks about our bad habits and slovenly use of language leading to us having foolish thoughts.

I think he is referring to the time when a meaning is not clear, because so many people have used a word incorrectly. One example I can think of is the difference between "jealousy" and "envy". They have specific meanings, but so many people use them interchangeably that eventually they will become synonyms. Sometimes the opposites end up having the same meaning, such as "flammable" and "inflammable".

The most startling (and rather sad) case I noticed was in the "Oxford English Dictionary" this year (I think, or maybe last year). Each time they publish a new edition, they publish a list of all the added new words, or added definitions, so those interested can see how our language is changing. I found it fascinating that so many people have used the word "literally" wrongly, to mean its opposite, that it is now in there as an alternative definition!

So whereas it used to be incorrect to say "I literally fell off my chair with surprise" (unless you had ended up on the floor), now you can say that! In earlier times you would have had to say "I "metaphorically" fell off my chair with surprise" or say it another way, such as "I almost fell off my chair with surprise". This is sad, because it means we have now lost a specific meaning, and there is no everyday substitute.

This, I believe, is the kind of bad habit that George Orwell is talking about. Because the word "literally" has been used in a lazy way so often, we now no longer have a word which has the specific former meaning. And in that way, language is "collapsing", as he says, even though it is expanding in all sorts of other ways with new words.

As well as this slovenliness, he also makes the point that we can change language deliberately, and I think this is more evident nowadays. As well as slang words like "wicked" having a positive meaning, there are also words which used to be used as insults or slurs, but are reclaimed and twisted round to mean their opposite. A good example of this is "queer" which now has a positive emphasis. But these examples were in George Orwell's future. I wonder what he would have made of them.

Anyway, to sum up, this is what I think he means:

1. Language is becoming degraded because we get bad habits, and can't be bothered to use it correctly.

2. He talks about taking control of language and making it work for you "shap[ing it] for our own purposes".

Edit: - Sorry, I had not seen your second post, so may have covered some of the same ground here!

Thanks, Jean.

So, what Orwell may be implying is that new words which are "an instrument which we shape for our own purposes" are justifiable, intelligent, focussed words that the language needs.

However, words already in the language but where meanings are "bastardized" and changed because we haven't taken the time to learn their meaning or to understand the implication of the word's definition are words that we use that show our lack of focus & intention. These words do not add to communication but hamper it because we don't take the time to understand them.

I laughed at this: "toe the line is sometimes written as tow the line".

One letter makes so much difference in meaning and intent.

"Tow the line" brings to mind a game of tug of war, with the rope being pulled to one side or the other. It's a changeable situation.

"Toe the line" brings to mind a solid place of intent and belief.

Yes, that's how I understand it :)

Who else is reading this one?

I haven't finished it yet, Jean. I've been out working in the garden while the weather has been favourable. I'll finish it soon.

It's one of his longer essays, but one that is often quoted. Perhaps others would like to read it over the summer :)

Orwell is articulate and to the point as always, and I agree with most of the essay. I enjoyed reading it as well as everyone's thoughts.

I don't know though if I would get worked up about every case of "bad language" he describes. Are "basic," "exhibit," and "utilize" really so terrible? If the meaning is clear and there's enough concrete language surrounding them, such terms don't bother me much. The problem is really when too many of them are strung together in such a way that the meaning is unclear.

But I definitely agree concrete language works best, both in terms of poetry/aesthetics and clarity. And I do think people need to be clear in their language, both to clarify their own thoughts and to communicate clearly with others.

One thing I wondered in reading this essay is if some of the specifics are different nowadays. I don't see political figures using what Orwell considers "pretentious" words much, at least around me. I actually see more of the other extreme, where people go out of their way to speak in a folksy way while avoiding any technical details and while artificially restricting themselves to words at or below a third grade level. And the few people who do try to explain in detail the flaws or complications of how some particular policy will work are seen as too intellectual, as though actually understanding how things work is itself arrogant.

Where I do see the pretentious, empty overblown language he describes is in technical and legal documents. There was a project at work that required me to understand a particular computer font. I remember reading a technical document put out by an international standards agency where after reading several thousand words, I realized that the entire past several pages had only one piece of meaningful content: I could have reduced it all to, "The letter A will be mapped to hex number 0x41!" It was infuriating! I had to take a few tylenol to read all 200 pages in order to extract the few useful pieces of information from the bloated monstrosity!

Side topic: Mark, I am totally with you in avoiding news! Since I stopped following current events some years ago, I've been much happier. I only follow it at the mimimum possible level to exercise my vote responsibly. I wonder sometimes if partisan politics is like chemotherapy - it might be needed to stop mutated tissue from growing (as political action is needed to solve a problem), but too high a dose of chemotherapy will kill the person along with the tumor. The dosage has to be meted out very carefully, and you always want to use the smallest dose that will do the job.

Greg wrote: "I don't know though if I would get worked up about every case of "bad language" he describes ..."

I enjoyed reading all your thoughts, Greg, thank you!

With your first point, I think we probably do still have a gut feeling about some words, and react violently against them, but they may be different words now, and will be different again in another 70-odd years. He does build in the basic fact of any language being organic and changing of course, so we take that as a given. What interested me was his idea tha we can change it wilfully, and whereas we can (and do) do that, it's the imprecise "sloppy" use of terms he is so critical of.

So the words you quote are often used vaguely, or as extra ones serving no function, which could therefore be cut out. "Basic" is like this, I think. I cut it out wherever I can, and notice that "basically" is just an empty word people use when they are forming the rest of their sentence! "Exhibit" only has a precise meaning when it's a noun, but using it as a verb is unnecessarily vague, and "show" would be simpler. "Utilize" is even worse I think: an overblown word and used in a pretentious way to sound grand. It adds nothing to the meaning, and if you insert it instead of "use" in my previous sentence, it becomes clear. (This is what I think anyway.) And like Connie, I loathe the pretentious use of "not un-", and am rather sad that it has not dropped out if use since George Orwell identified it as clunky so long ago.

So I agree with him there, but I agree with you that an occasional woolly word like this inserted now and then does no real harm, as long as the context makes it clear.

Where I came unstuck is in his resisting Latin and Greek based words, and preferring Anglo-Saxon. I'm not sure I would always recognise them - although admittedly I appreciated his examples! Also his strict rule about not using Americanisms is a bit dated now. Since television we listen to all sorts of English. We tend to slip into all different sorts of vernacular than our own, and some kids sound quite Antipodean because of the Australian soaps they watch in the "arvo". I don't think twice about saying "OK", but I remember an elderly friend condemning this (and my parents weren't too keen either!) But some current American parts of speech predate current English English - e.g. "gotten", which has not been used here since the 18th century.

I can see why you think concrete language is more effective in poetry/aesthetics, and certainly helps in accessibility, but George Orwell may say that would need another essay to explain what he thought. At least he did specifically say that it was only language as simple communication he was talking about in this one, and not for artistic effect. So I think you go a little further even than he does, Greg.

"Where I do see the pretentious, empty overblown language he describes is in technical and legal documents."

Oh yes, I agree absolutely and this essay really hit the mark for me here. (Sorry for the idiom, Mr. Orwell!) Thanks for your example.

It's interesting what you say about over-simplistic political language, and I wonder if that is just in the USA. In England here I would say there is still a lot of waffle and grand claims which actually are nonspecific when you analyse them - just as he did. And as he says, all the parties are guilty of this.

Each discipline seems to have its own character of language use. Legals documents do not use punctuation, but the meaning is not easier to understand as a consequence, but in my opinion rather the reverse. Government and official letters to the public are so dumbed down as to be virtually useless. (e.g. "information leaflets" about drugs which seem to say in 5 different ways, "Your doctor has decided this is the best medicine for you" without answering the facts you want to know!) or the other extreme, and full of idealistic aims, much like the political ones, full of overblown language.

I was glad that George Orwell included examples from so many different types of sources, to really nail this!

Is anyone else reading this at the moment?

Bionic Jean wrote: "It's interesting what you say about over-simplistic political language, and I wonder if that is just in the USA. In England here I would say there is still a lot of waffle and grand claims which actually are nonspecific when you analyse them - just as he did. And as he says, all the parties are guilty of this."

Oh, absolutely, and I imagine that will be a problem in politics perenially! For sure, there are many in American politics too who make an art of saying many words with no actual content!

I just meant that the precise way to do that might be different nowadays here. Orwell seems concerned that people use fancy words to appear smart. I suspect though that American politicians are much more likely to try to appear less smart, less sophisticated, or less knowledgeable than they actually are. I think they feel it gives them a wider appeal if they don't appear too "wonky." When Orwell talks about "pretentious" language and an "inflated style" in political writing, it made me curious . . . I just can't imagine a contemporary American politician use a phrase like "rectification of frontiers"!

An American politician of either major party would be more likely to say something simplistic and folksy like "stop the bad guys." But those simple words can be just as meaningless if there are no details on how exactly that would be done or what their plan is . . . or even who these "bad guys" are exactly.

But either way, the root problem is the same. Whether the words are what Orwell thinks of as pretentious or whether they are simple ones, a long political speech with no real, meaningful content is a problem.

Greg wrote: "I just meant that the precise way to do that might be different nowadays here. Orwell seems concerned that people use fancy words to appear smart. I suspect though that American politicians are much more likely to try to appear less smart, less sophisticated, or less knowledgeable than they actually are."

This is such a great point, Greg. In the US anyway, we really have seen a flip to the other side of the same problematic, lack-of-communication coin. Both are a way of trying to sound trustworthy by saying as little as possible.

I wonder what George Orwell might write about the difference in the words chosen by politicians now.

I do think he nails it when he says we choose phrases and word patterns which are familiar and comfortable. I'm sure this habit stops us thinking properly. But my favourite "small sin" i.e. one which I dislike a lot, is the use of the passive voice, and third person, when it's not appropriate. We see this a lot in the round robins we get at the end of the year from family and friends. There is a paragraph about each member of the family in turn, written with a disembodied voice, as if the computer has locked them all in the cellar! Why nobody takes responsibility for the letter I don't know. Another instance is profile pages on GR, by authors. We all know that they are personal statements, so why are they written in the third person? Is this to give an air of professionalism? For me it has the opposite effect. Job descriptions are sometimes like this too.

Another point ... George Orwell's biographer Michael Shelden has said that the themes in "Politics and the English Language" anticipate Orwell's development of Newspeak in Nineteen Eighty-Four. He calls Newspeak "the perfect language for a society of bad writers ... because it reduces the number of choices available to them". Also that Newspeak first corrupts writers morally, then politically, "since it allows writers to cheat themselves and their readers with ready-made prose".

So I'm back to my first point now, although I know I use ready-made idioms and comfortably familiar phrases as much as anyone else.

I will be out of touch for awhile, I am going to Scotland.

Josephine wrote: "I will be out of touch for awhile, I am going to Scotland."

Have fun Josephine!

Greg, George Orwell was such a great writer who deserves never to be forgotten. Keep on reading.

I hope you have a good time there, Josephine.

You probably know that Scotland - or the island of Jura anyway - was George Orwell's happy place. There a photo of his cottage if you are interested LINK HERE.

Have a nice time in Scotland, Josephine!

I wonder Mark. In a way, you are probably right that George Orwell would hope for improvements, rather than the development of the odd phenomenon of "fake news", for instance. And he had the will to change things, even though the resulting exhaustion probably killed him in the end.

But he might be wise enough to predict that as well as progress and improvements, (e.g. in our technology) we have things that get progressively worse.

I find it very sobering that the social and environmental issues that I remember from my idealistic youth are still with us. I mean, we were going to change the world, weren't we? I really did believe that. Never in a million years (alright Mr. Orwell, I'll take that bit out!) did I predict that we would still be talking about them so many decades later - and that they would still be unresolved, or even in some cases far worse.

Is anyone else reading this? Or is about to read it?

Bionic Jean wrote: "I wonder Mark. In a way, you are probably right that George Orwell would hope for improvements, rather than the development of the odd phenomenon of "fake news", for instance. And he ..."

I think it’s hard to imagine how mr Orwell would respond to the myriad of issues facing our societies today. He had a very strong voice, and a very clear sense of what was right and what was wrong. I don’t think there is anyone at all like him around today. I miss Lennon. He was the leader of our generation. We’ve gone far astray without him. >)

Mark wrote: "I think it’s hard to imagine how mr Orwell would respond to the myriad of issues facing our societies today. He had a very strong voice, and a very clear sense of what was right and what was wrong ..."

Oh I completely agree! Things have changed a lot ... yet some baser aspects of human nature are timeless. He would call out injustices and unfairness - and be so articulate about it that he'd be hard to gainsay!

In this essay George Orwell admits that he commits some of the "blunders" of being vague, or skewing facts by the words he uses, but it must be very seldom. It does make me more aware of when I'm inadvertently doing it though :(

I'm really glad you suggested this essay thanks Mark, and hope everyone finds time to fit it in :)

I am sorry about not answering. I have been gone for awhile. I just got back from Scotland.

I hope you had a good time, Josephine :)

And for anyone who hasn't read this essay, it's worth reading this final week. Then we'll have a summer read of a novel: you should get get a GR notification about this tomorrow if I've counted right ;)

I will look forward to what the next book will be. I hope I can find it. I am back in the states.

As we're nearing the end. here is my review of Politics and the English Language, in case anyone is interested :) LINK HERE.

While reading the "Meaningless Words" section, I had a strong feeling of 1984.
The description of political speeches meaning nothing to the speaker, that he is a cog in the machine without thought or opinion, was chillingly like the book Orwell would write only 2 years after writing this essay.

"Probably it is better to put off using words as long as possible and get one's meaning as clear as one can through pictures or sensations. Afterwards one can choose - not simply accept - the phrases that will best cover the meaning. "

This reminded me of the author (who I cannot now name) who wrote in French (not his native tongue, which I believe was English) because he had to think about each word to ensure that it said what he meant it to say. Only when he was satisfied that the French words said what he wanted them to did he translate the words into his native English. He felt that having to think about the right word to use in French, ensured that the English version was what he wanted to write.

I can't for the life of me think of who this author is right now. I hope it comes back to me.

At the end is a quote that, I think, sums up the feeling of 1984 for me:

"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."

Pure 1984.

While this was a serious essay, Orwell still made me chuckle at the end with "...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......into the dustbin where it belongs. "

I think what he's basically saying is to be true to your thoughts and ideas; not let others, including the wrong words, influence your thoughts and ideas. Think about what you believe in and state that; not let an ideology choose the words for you to speak.

It's a matter of being conscious in every moment. That's difficult and, perhaps, idealistic in today's World. But I suppose he's right in that we could and should try.

Petra wrote: ""Probably it is better to put off using words as long as possible and get one's meaning as clear as one can through pictures or sensations. Afterwards one can choose - not simply accept - the phras..."

Beckett wrote Waiting for Godot in French and then translated it into English. >)