Politics and the English Language: Orwell's Critique Explained

Introduction: The Decline of Modern English

In his essay "Politics and the English Language," George Orwell discusses the flaws and degeneration of the English language. He believes that the language is losing its focus and direction, becoming increasingly unclear and vague — giving rise to writing that makes little or no sense. Many people share Orwell's observation and feel that English writing is bringing on its own decline through common mistakes made repeatedly and persistently. It has been noticed that with frequent use of words and phrases that sound impressive but actually lack meaning, English writing is becoming unfocused and obscure.

Orwell cites examples of how supposedly learned writers make clear mistakes, and the vocabulary they employ is often mind-boggling. Readers are left in a state of confusion, wondering whether their own standards have declined or whether they have suddenly lost command of the language — because what they read does not sound like English to them. This modern English is very different from what we call Standard English, and modern writing is guilty of four very common blunders, each discussed in turn below.

The First Mistake: Worn-Out Metaphors

Orwell believes that the first serious mistake made by modern writers is the use of old and nearly dead metaphors. He argues that since writers no longer try to build their vocabulary or invent fresh phrases, they frequently fall back on similes and metaphors that have become so dry and dull that they fail to excite readers or serve any real purpose. As Orwell writes:

"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, no axe to grind, grist to the mill, fishing in troubled waters, on the order of the day, Achilles' heel, swan song, hotbed."

Orwell is convinced that modern writers use their metaphors without being fully aware of their meaning, simply to save themselves the effort of developing better phrases. We cannot blame Orwell for being harsh with modern English writers, because most readers will have encountered similar vague writing themselves. Pick up a newspaper or magazine and you will find countless examples of unclear prose in which the use of obtuse, nearly senseless metaphors completely destroys the essence of the piece.

For example, consider the following definition of democracy by E.B. White, which illustrates how reliance on figurative language without precision can render a passage nearly impenetrable:

"Democracy is the line that forms on the right. It is the don't in Don't shove. It is the hole in the stuffed shirt through which the sawdust slowly trickles; it is the dent in the high hat. Democracy is the recurrent suspicion that more than half of the people are right more than half of the time. It is the feeling of privacy in the voting booths, the feeling of communion in the libraries, the feeling of vitality everywhere. Democracy is the letter to the editor. Democracy is the score at the beginning of the ninth. It is an idea that hasn't been disproved yet, a song the words of which have not gone bad."

A reader may need considerable time to decode this passage — and even then, its meaning remains elusive. This is precisely the kind of writing Orwell warned against.

The Second Mistake: Inappropriate Verbs and Noun Phrases

The second common mistake, according to Orwell, is the inappropriate use of verbs and nouns. He argues that writers tend to overuse verb phrases in place of single verbs — meaning that even when one word could convey the message, writers deliberately choose a phrase, rendering the writing needlessly complex. The following passage from David Lodge's Small World illustrates what unclear modern writing can look like in practice:

"Language is a code. But every decoding is another encoding.... It is the terpsichorean equivalent of the hermeneutic fallacy of recoupable meaning, which claims that if we remove the clothing of its rhetoric from a literary text we discover the bare facts it is trying to communicate.... To read is to surrender oneself to an endless displacement of curiosity and desire from one sentence to another. The text unveils itself before us, but never allows itself to be possessed; and instead of striving to possess it we should take pleasure in its teasing."

While the passage is not without literary merit, it demonstrates how the substitution of elaborate constructions for plain language can push readers toward confusion rather than comprehension.

References

Sanford Pinsker, "Can Writing Be Too Clear?" The Midwest Quarterly, vol. 39, no. 4, 1998.