In "Politics and the English Language," George Orwell gives a bunch of opinions about the Soviet Union that I've seen discussed extensively here and on the internet at large.
However, what about the writing advice itself? Putting the political opinions aside, is he right about how to communicate effectively?
Personally I like a lot of what he has to say, even if a good chunk of it basically boils down to "don't be lazy". I particularly agree with what he has to say about words with no clear definitions:
"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 almost universally felt that when we call a country democratic we are praising it: consequently the defenders of every kind of régime claim that it is a democracy, and fear that they might have to stop using that word if it were tied down to any one meaning."
I do think that he overstates his case at a lot of points, though. Like sure, language can have an effect on how people behave, but he makes these apocalyptic predictions about a "degradation" in language leading to actual, political authoritarianism, and that just seems incredibly dubious, at least from a modern perspective. This seems to reflect the liberal perspective where the primary cause of political change is people winning and losing arguments.
Depends if your intention is to lie or not, to soften or to harden description. Half of citations needed is looking behind of those euphemisms, like free choice in the market, or kinetic solutions
The goal of political writing of dominating form is to lie and protect system, oppositional form - to critique the system. It follows the opposing writing should be truthful, and direct, while protecting by necessity will soften into euphemisms.
I find it interesting that he uses the word totalitarian to describe the USSR in this very article despite identifying it as a meaningless word.
I also think that for most people in most contexts it's fine to use common metaphors or "jargon" words (he uses art critique as an example for this). Not everyone needs to aspire to be Shakespeare and people have been doing this forever as a form of cultural shorthand, it's not some modern d*generacy of language.
Oops it's been two weeks, that's about how frequently I log on lmao
Yeah he doesn't really follow his own advice here, I'm not sure if that means anything about its accuracy but it's funny to point out.
I agree it's fine to use common metaphors but the part I think he gets right is that they just shouldn't be used thoughtlessly. Like if you're trying to write well you shouldn't borrow phrases without really understanding them.
how frequently I log on
Goals TBH
Really I just don’t want to give Orwell any credit. The article did strike me as a little elitist though, for most people written language is a means to an end and not an art form, but if you’re someone who wants their writing to be aesthetically pleasing and impactful I agree 100% with his conclusions.
For most people though, just knowing what the word you say mean and not saying things like “in this pacific case” or “for all intensive purposes” is sufficient.
I don't really want to give him credit either but he's not the only person to make this point so maybe we can give the credit to one of the others lol
I think with something like “for all intensive purposes” the mistake is indicative of a larger problem though, like if that's the mistake you're making then it's a sign of general thoughtlessness. Ofc it's not like the end of the world or anything but I feel like anyone who's engaging with writing advice in the first place is probably interested in the little details.
However, what about the writing advice itself? Putting the political opinions aside, is he right about how to communicate effectively?
Pretty much, yeah.
