What is the main point of Orwell's essay?
How does it apply to science writing?
-- BK
Orwell's most important point is to keep writing simple. His six rules highlight the importance of clarity. It's more important that your reader understand what you're saying then your writing be flamboyant.
This applies directly to science writing, and any kind of reporting. The main purpose of reporting is to, obviously, report the facts. Mixed metaphors, complex, uncommon, words do nothing to help clarify facts. In science writing it's important to avoid being too scientific, and important to simplify complex things so that the average news reader can understand it.
Quentin
I think Orwell is making the point of the how subjective language can be, and highlights this in the English language.
“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 regime 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.”
No doubt this is not only an evident problem with language but also is clear in our country with conflicting and opposing values. Many of our issues in this country result from conflicting opinions and values, which depending, can shape solutions created to approach these problems. Of course one type of solution from one viewpoint conflict with another viewpoint proposing an alternative solution. People don’t even see the problems and issues in the same light, so how can we agree on a unified solution. The government aims to provide solutions for the public that will result in “fairness” and “order” but the terms themselves are even subjective (back to Orwell’s point). So where do we go from here?
I believe Orwell is also making the point that meaning can be lost in words and it takes engaged and thoughtful action in the choice of one’s words to accurately portray this meaning. I think, however, he is a victim of his own criticisms because this essay could probably be interpreted differently, as may be evident with the students in this class, because of the length of words he uses to convey this very message.
I myself may even be victim.
Science writing must be the ultimate culprit because the science itself, being a SUBJECT itself, must be ultimately SUBJECTIVE. What is good science? What even is science these days? Who knows. So how do you write about it?
REACTION: Is science ultimately subjective or is it objective? (see Positivism, Karl Popper, Khunian paradigms) How do we know what we know? (Epistemology) Can we know "about" something without having to know "how" something is done? Can we know about science without being scientists ourselves? And where does that knowledge fit into the scientific versus policy debates? -- BK
My favorite quote: “For every Ph.D. there is an equal and opposite Ph.D.” (-Gibson’s Law)
To convey meaning of the ultimate subjective subject through words must be extremely difficult. I am interested, Dr. Kovarik, in how we will be learning to do so this semester!
-Jackie
REACTION: The point reminds me to mention the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis about language, a semi-deterministic idea from linguistics positing a relationship between language and the way a person understands the world and behaves in it. Supposedly, Eskimos have a few dozen words for snow. (Not true, but indiciative of something important). S &W also had the idea that a Hopi might better understand the theory of relativity than a European-American. -- BK
Orwell critiques the use of the English language in a sentimental, archaic way, claiming that it is currently being “abused” and forgetting that all people are different and that everything changes with time, even language.
He uses words like “decline,” “ugly,” “inaccurate,” “foolish” and “slovenliness” to describe the English language in its current state. Then what does he have to say about society? Are we declining, ugly, inaccurate, foolish and slovenly? I think most people would agree that, though there are some people in our society who would indeed fit this description, society as a whole, speaking the English language, is quite the opposite. We, like the English language, are in a constant state of change. We are progressing, not declining. We are learning from our mistakes and unfollishly trying to achieve our many goals in more efficient ways. We are one of the most impressive societies in the world and we speak the English language.
Language is a means by which people communicate. I think that if people can understand each other, then language is doing its job effectively. He does specifically pick on writing however. As this form of communication is not usually interactive, it is more important to convey meaning more precisely when writing. In the provided examples, Orwell has indeed found bad use of the English language as these are obviously bad writers. What about the good writers out there? What about diversity of writing styles? If a writer can communicate their thoughts to their readers, they have succeeded regardless of their use of proper English.
As this article was written in 1946, I can understand why he uses outdated metaphors and other examples. For the exact reasons he mentions, the metaphors he references are not used anymore because people don’t know what they mean. There are tons of metaphors used today that are extremely common but I do not think that the people who use them are unimaginative. I think that this is the progression of the English language. People make useful comparisons which become commonly used because they help people communicate with each other. Furthermore, there is nothing wrong with the use of “foreign words and expressions” as long as those communicating can understand.
I feel that Orwell has forgotten that ordinary people also have the ability to listen to someone or read their work and decide for ourselves if they really said anything.
Though he does slightly redeem himself through his last few paragraphs, I think this article as a whole is outdated and stereotypes English speaking people. I especially have a problem with his constant use of the word “improper” as I think that is “vague” and “meaningless.”
~Courtney
REACTION: Sometimes criticism of the modern seems to be an implicit criticism of young people too. I agree, the essay is outdated. -- BK
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Orwell article should be assigned reading to all students! I myself have often pondered over how a limited language capacity could be beneficial to certain political interests (doublespeak?), which is what this article focuses on. I acknowledge the fact that I am a victim of this development. Fortunately after reading this I am even more motivated to try and fix my bad English. Hopefully, Orwell is right in that the process is reversible. I already feel more aware as I am writing this response!!
My inclination is that the situation (“existing social conditions”) today is even worse than when Orwell wrote this in 1946. Perhaps that is a common tendancy (to think that its never been this bad before) but i do think that we are increasingly dumbed down by the media and thus, distracted from reality. Incessant celebrity gossip, product ads and euphemisms hinder our ability to think/speak clearly. We are prescribed pills from a young age that standardize our thinking (pass that SAT!) or numb us entirely. We are spoon fed the news by tv stations that are basically owned by large military firms. Ultimately this impedes our ability to make good decisions—ranging from normal, day to day decisions (what to eat, whether or not to exercise, smoke etc.) to political decisions (why to vote for someone.) Did we ever stop to think why so much money is spent on ads and to legitimize political campaigns? And in whose interest?
This limiting of our ability to think inhibits the functioning of the democratic process (who would want that?!). We herald ourselves as being the most democratic nation--but where in the world do we find the time to investigate whats really going on in our government and in the world (let alone learn the countries of it) when we are so distracted by our health problems, hollywood scandals, debts etc. in order to make informed decisions? Its much easier to simply trust the bobble heads on the television than to formulate our own thoughts. Why do it if we don't see any real benefits from doing so?
I liked the paragraph where he defines political rhetoric as “the defense of the indefensible.” I find this to be largely true. I can’t even bear to watch politics on the television anymore! I feel that the language that they use is offensive (fanatical, war-mongering) and an assault on my intelligence. Both presidential candidates (and vp’s) succumb to the “inflated,” vague style that empowers them to talk without making any real promises.
How it applies to science writing?
We would like to think that science writing is objective but as Jackie pointed out, its not, nothing is. The variance of opinion on how best to preserve/conserve the environment or develop sustainably stem from this fact. In the best case scenario, science writing can try to be as unbiased and fresh as possible, including only the relevant facts (which ofcourse also vary depending on the interests at hand) without trying to sell "the indefensible" as in political writing or advertising. Science writing ought to be a tool that is meant to inform and not conform ("unite") the public.
---DEANA
REACTION: Unbiased and fresh is good. -- BK
____________________________________________________________________
I think Orwell makes a valid point. There is a lot of flowery language in publications, even today. By trying to sound educated or knowledgeable on a subject, writers sometimes overdo it and completely lose the meaning that they are trying to convey. Sometimes, the thesaurus actually backfires. Also, it is so tempting to fill a paper with colloquialisms and clichés. Words that have already been written are easier to write than original ones.
This plays an important role in science writing. A lot of writing that I have read sounds pretty, but when you get down to the nitty gritty, if you will, the writer doesn't know what they are talking about. With a little more research and a little less flourish they would do a much better job of conveying their message to their reader.
The most important lesson that I took from this article were the six basic questions every writer should ask themselves.
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?
5. Could I put it more shortly?
6. Have I said anything that is avoidably ugly?
These questions are so crucial for the editing and writing process. They help to avoid the blunders that writers can encounter.
Maureen
I think it's interesting to note this passage:
"Silly words and expressions have often disappeared, not through any evolutionary process but owing to the conscious action of a minority. Two recent examples were explore every avenue and leave no stone unturned, which were killed by the jeers of a few journalists."
I'm sure I've heard these phrases used recently.
Other than that, I think Orwell's tips and points about writing are still relevant today. We all are guilty of using this "inflated" language at one point or another. When reporting on scientific and political issues, it is most important to first understand the concept and then use clear language to report it.
- Sarah
___________________________________________________________________________
This essay combines two fundamental arguments in its main point. One is the academic argument with language and how to use English more effectively and to avoid clichés. These points explain how tighter writing and less metaphoric terms lead to a more direct and readable prose. It is an outright argument against euphemisms and metaphors that are either antiquated or overused.
The other argument made in this essay is how words and rhetoric can blind people to what terms mean. This is true in the written word as well as the spoken word. This all goes back to the basic argument about using rhetoric in print or while talking. By using bigger words and clichés that some might not understand, we are making some points that are not understandable and therefore to do not explain the message completely. Writing is a basic form of communication so using these guidelines help ensure that the basic concept of writing, i.e. communicating, is not lost on writers. This goes to talking as well and the inherent dangers.
-Adam
In George Orwells, "Politics and the English Language," he points out writers often try to over express themselves by putting together words not commonly used, resulting in a mixed message in what their actually trying to show the reader. When structuring a sentence, it’s better to say what you actually think rather than to input words to make your sentences sound more professional. Streaming words together can mislead the reader, by not given them the option to fully understand the big picture.
Quote : "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. The attraction of this way of writing is that it is easy."
- Derek
Comments (0)
You don't have permission to comment on this page.