George Orwell's Concept of the Ideal Writer - Term Paper Example

George Orwell’s Concept of the Ideal Throughout his writings, one can determine that the ideas of politics weighed heavily on the mind of George Orwell. Although he is most known for his books Animal Farm and 1984, Orwell also wrote many articles as a political journalist and writer of short stories. During the course of his writing career, Orwell naturally made the connection between writing and political thinking, analyzing the various ways in which political leaders communicate. His essay “Politics and the English Language” addresses what Orwell felt was the primary vehicle by which the English language was losing its meaning, primarily as it was used within the political arena. By enumerating the various ways in which English was being misused by those who would lead the people, Orwell indicates both the reasons why the language has been subverted to concentrate more on the printed words than the actual meaning as well as how this process might be reversed using the same medium. By analyzing his argument and investigating several of his supporting arguments, one begins to understand not only Orwell’s idea of the ideal writer, but also an idea of his political ideal. Orwell opens his argument with a bold statement, encouraging his readers to immediately agree with him and “most people” that the English language has been badly abused by the decadent culture of the modern world. “Our civilization is decadent and our language – so the argument runs – must inevitably share in the general collapse” (para. 1). As he builds his case regarding the poor use of English in 1946 when the essay was written, he illustrates the various ways in which it is abused and thus builds an image of the ideal writer. Within the course of this argument, he also illustrates why it is important to keep good English in use, how he defines good English and, in connection with this, what he looks for in ideal political expression. What emerges is not the formal support for the dry academic style seen in most papers today or even a call for more rigid instruction of common grammar and usage rules. Instead, Orwell supports the use of everyday language, concrete connections and thoughtful expression. Anything else, he says, is designed to conceal the truth from the audience. The Argument To facilitate discussion, an outline of Orwell’s argument is helpful. He begins with his assumption, that the English language has become slovenly as the result of political and economic games designed to lull the public into acquiescence. He supports this assumption by demonstrating how the English language has become meaningless through the use of phrases and other literary ‘tricks.’ This type of meaningless communication fosters foolish thoughts in the minds of the public forced to use it. He provides several examples of the type of writing he is criticizing, describing it as a “mixture of vagueness and sheer incompetence” which “is the most marked characteristic of modern English prose, and especially of any kind of political writing. As soon as certain topics are raised, the concrete melts into the abstract and no one seems able to think of turns of speech that are not hackneyed: prose consists less and less of words chosen for the sake of their meaning, and more and more of phrases tacked together like the sections of a prefabricated henhouse” (para. 9). As long as people are thinking foolish thoughts, political leaders can feed them more meaningless phrases and avoid discussing the real issues or the ugliness of reality. At the same time, they are reinforcing the sub-message that encourages the public to continue thinking foolish thoughts. Within this argument, Orwell suggests another argument, that the political leaders intentionally introduce this form of miscommunication into the English language as a means of hiding the truth of their activities from the public. By focusing on the stringing together of phrases rather than conveying any real meaning in their statements, political leaders are capable of seeming to say something when, in reality, they are saying something completely different. Because these phrases are made to sound intelligent and meaningful, using a number of communication ‘tricks’, the public is easily lulled into acceptance of what is being said as something positive toward the political leader or negative toward those who stand in opposition to the political leader. The talent of hiding the truth in accepted but meaningless language is discovered as Orwell examines the six major tricks that have been developed within the world of what we call ‘spin’ today. The Tricks Orwell identifies several ‘tricks’ within the English language that are used to give the impression of meaning even as they serve to conceal the meaning. Most of them are illustrated as a deadening influence on the language through overuse and loss of connection. For example, in introducing the concept of the ‘dying metaphor’, Orwell mentions such worn out phrases as ‘kicked the bucket’ as a metaphor for death, ‘grist to the mill’ as an indication of increasing productivity or adding fuel and ‘bridge over troubled waters’ as a means of suggesting a comforting or calming influence. For many of these types of phrases, not only has the audience heard them so often as to allow their minds to glaze over at the connection, but many have even lost meaning as the world becomes less familiar with the real-world connections being made. Another common ‘trick’ identified by Orwell is the use of passive language. This is accomplished by replacing active verbs with passive phrases or noun conjunctions such as ‘give rise to’, ‘makes itself felt’ or ‘takes effect’. There is no call to action, no appeal to the senses and no motion to move within statements that use this technique. The underlying message is that the listener need do nothing in this communication process; everything has already been taken care of. Pretentious vocabulary usage particularly that based on Greek or Latin roots tends to suggest high levels of education and thus tend to overpower the imagination with half-formed concepts of what these terms mean. Rather than questioning the intention, most audiences allow the words to float past them and simply accept that the speaker knows what they are talking about while educated audiences allow themselves to become bogged down in speculation as to what is intended, eventually coming to the conclusion they wish to find. Finally, many writers of English continue to use words that have lost much of their meaning through extensive use on top of an already abstract concept. Examples of these types of words include ‘fascist’, ‘socialist’ and ‘sublime’. While many people have a basic idea of what these words mean, they have been used so often to so many different purposes that they have lost any ability to convey real meaning. Linking Politics to Writing Orwell seems to place much of the blame for the meaninglessness of modern English on the shoulders of the politicians, who have become very machine-like in their attempts to sway the opinion of the public. Describing the figurehead at the top of a political party, Orwell says, “the appropriate noises are coming out of his larynx, but his brain is not involved as it would be if he were choosing his words for himself. If the speech he is making is one that he is accustomed to make over and over again, he may be almost unconscious of what he is saying, as one is when one utters the responses in church. And this reduced state of consciousness, if not indispensable, is at any rate favorable to political conformity” (para. 19). In other words, not only is the speech intended to keep the audience’s minds sleeping in dazed ignorance, but the political leader himself is often unconcerned about the words coming out of his or her mouth. Instead, they are following a party plan as to how to keep public favor while discussing issues that may be relatively contentious. As Orwell points out, this type of speech is generally used to defend indefensible political positions – such as oppression over another country, premeditated presumptive war on a weaker power or other moves that are politically expedient but not how the party wishes to be seen by the public. Thus, spin is created that removes much of the meaning from the statements and serves to confuse the issue and accepted definitions. “When there is a gap between one’s real and one’s declared aims, one turns as it were instinctively to long words and exhausted idioms, like a cuttlefish squirting out ink. In our age there is no such thing as ‘keeping out of politics.’ All issues are political issues, and politics itself is a mass of lies, evasions, folly, hatred and schizophrenia” (para. 22). This ‘mass of lies, evasions, folly, hatred and schizophrenia’ is fueled and sustained by the intentionally misleading and uninformative language of the corrupted English language Orwell criticizes here. Thus, political thought and attempts to sway the public is responsible for the corruption of the English language. It deliberately introduces new means of communication that serve to confuse rather than clarify the issues. As this type of language became more accepted, though, thanks to its ability to conceal reality, it also became more automatic because of the ease with which the phrases fell into place. Thus, through the same mechanism that allows thought to corrupt language, language is capable of corrupting thought. This process contributes to the numbing of the mind as writers and readers are no longer compelled to make new connections of meaning or use more expressive language of the everyday. By using these tricks of language, the writer or the speaker is effectively putting the reader to sleep regarding the issue under discussion. By reading this type of language (or listening to it, etc.), the reader is giving his or her brain permission to go to sleep regarding the issue. This poor language, Orwell says, corrupts our thoughts and makes it difficult for us to think creatively, meaningfully and clearly. Because poor language can affect thinking poorly, as has been demonstrated thus far in Orwell’s argument, it goes to follow that good language can affect thinking positively and that the increased use of good language, and ridicule of poor language, could improve political communication and thought. The Ideal Writer Based upon the ideas expressed in his essay, Orwell considers the ideal writer to be someone who works to eliminate poor English from his writing in concern for clear communication. Orwell prizes those writers who tend toward the concrete and the everyday, losing the pretentious and lifeless language of science for the concrete, emotional, sensual words of the normal. “A scrupulous writer, in every sentence that he writes, will ask himself at least four questions, thus: What am I trying to say? What words will express it? What image or idiom will make it clearer? Is this image fresh enough to have an effect? And he will probably ask himself two more: Could I put it more shortly? Have I said anything that is avoidably ugly?” (para. 18). Rather than fighting for a particular vocabulary or grammar book, Orwell is stressing the importance of allowing the meaning to choose the word rather than the other way around. “In prose, the worst thing one can do with words is to surrender to them. When you think of a concrete object, you think wordlessly, and then, if you want to describe the thing you have been visualizing you probably hunt about till you find the exact words that seem to fit in. When you think of something abstract you are more inclined to use words from the start, and unless you make a conscious effort to prevent it, the existing dialect will come rushing in and do the job for you, at the expense of blurring or even changing your meaning. 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” (para. 25). By eliminating poor English from his writing, the ideal writer fosters the development of good English among his audience and encourages the free thinking of the mind. When a community can communicate with English effectively, they are also capable of thinking clear thoughts as a result of their improved communication skills The Political Ideal Orwell’s political ideal is thus a world in which the people are adequately informed with thoughtful, clearly worded presentations that encourage them to explore the truth and make decisions based on comprehensible information regarding the issues. The ideal leader would follow the six basic rules of good English which have nothing to do with grammar books or vocabulary lists. As Orwell presented them, these rules include never use a metaphor that is seen often in print, never use a long word where a short one would work, always cut out words that can be cut out without losing meaning, never use the passive where the active can be used, never use a pretentious word if an everyday English word can be used and break any of these rules sooner than saying anything outright barbarous. “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” (para. 33). To Orwell, the ideal political climate would seek to clear this air and to allow the people to know their candidates and parties for who and what they truly are. Good English would be used to express the party’s stance on the various issues and candidates would be forced to use good English when making speeches and discussing these same issues so as to ensure that the people are actively mentally engaged in the political process. When people are capable of thinking clear thoughts, they are able to conceive of effective political pursuits that work for the good of all and thus bring about a more perfect world. Works Cited Orwell, Geroge. “Politics and the English Language.” 1946. Read More