This is truly a classic essay, always worth a look-over once in a while.
The objection to Latin- and Greek-derived synonyms is understandable but he misses his real target. The reason you see so much of that kind of thing in bureaucratic "business" writing is that usually the idea is very simple, often brutally so, but because of the social situation it needs to be "dressed up" a little bit so that it sounds objective and important and -- most importantly -- hard to argue with. Never "you might be fired," rather something like "in view of the department's recent budget review, the department will expedite the general review of each team member's performance numbers in order to determine the areas best suited for right-sizing..." etc. Yeah, it's a load of crap, but any idiot gets the message in about two seconds, especially if the idiot in question hasn't been doing too well with his sales. In brief, I think Orwell's instincts are good, but what he is really objecting to here are the social situations that create writing like that. Someone is always being dishonest or softening the impact of a rough blow. But he's attacking a symptom here.
The other objection, to "foreign phrases" as he calls them, is completely misguided and is in the same vein as the above. With one exception, every one of those phrases is now an accepted part of the English language. More to the point, can you imagine anybody saying "status quo" or "cul de sac" in an effort to sound cultured? As if! I can imagine those phrases in the mouth of a truck driver and it seems perfectly natural. They even named a video game after "deus ex machina." Foreign phrases, used enough, become native phrases. Again, it's the attitude of the writer he's objecting to, in this case pretentiousness.
In both cases Orwell is making a moral judgment, dressed up as recommended editorial policy.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2007-09-06 05:17 am (UTC)The objection to Latin- and Greek-derived synonyms is understandable but he misses his real target. The reason you see so much of that kind of thing in bureaucratic "business" writing is that usually the idea is very simple, often brutally so, but because of the social situation it needs to be "dressed up" a little bit so that it sounds objective and important and -- most importantly -- hard to argue with. Never "you might be fired," rather something like "in view of the department's recent budget review, the department will expedite the general review of each team member's performance numbers in order to determine the areas best suited for right-sizing..." etc. Yeah, it's a load of crap, but any idiot gets the message in about two seconds, especially if the idiot in question hasn't been doing too well with his sales. In brief, I think Orwell's instincts are good, but what he is really objecting to here are the social situations that create writing like that. Someone is always being dishonest or softening the impact of a rough blow. But he's attacking a symptom here.
The other objection, to "foreign phrases" as he calls them, is completely misguided and is in the same vein as the above. With one exception, every one of those phrases is now an accepted part of the English language. More to the point, can you imagine anybody saying "status quo" or "cul de sac" in an effort to sound cultured? As if! I can imagine those phrases in the mouth of a truck driver and it seems perfectly natural. They even named a video game after "deus ex machina." Foreign phrases, used enough, become native phrases. Again, it's the attitude of the writer he's objecting to, in this case pretentiousness.
In both cases Orwell is making a moral judgment, dressed up as recommended editorial policy.
Now go puff on THAT pipe for a while. :)