I especially like how Orwell draws a contrived but all too true comparison between the following passages.
I returned and saw under the sun, that the race is not to the swift, nor the battle to the strong, neither yet bread to the wise, nor yet riches to men of understanding, nor yet favour to men of skill; but time and chance happeneth to them all. -- passage from Ecclesiastes
vs.
Objective considerations of contemporary phenomena compels the conclusion that success or failure in competitive activities exhibits no tendency to be commensurate with innate capacity, but that a considerable element of the unpredictable must invariably be taken into account. -- modern translation
I could definitely imagine reading the latter in an op-ed.
The latter I think is also what Taleb was referring to when, in the context of criticizing IQ, he remarked that most of Europe was a backwater for most of history
> But one can often be in doubt about the effect of a word or a phrase, and one needs rules that one can rely on when instinct fails. I think the following rules will cover most cases:
i. Never use a metaphor, simile or other figure of speech which you are used to seeing in print.
ii. Never use a long word where a short one will do.
iii. If it is possible to cut a word out, always cut it out.
iv. Never use the passive where you can use the active.
v. Never use a foreign phrase, a scientific word or a jargon word if you can think of an everyday English equivalent.
vi. Break any of these rules sooner than say anything outright barbarous.
I originally read this essay in high school english but still think of it frequently. These ideas are foundational for critical thinking; it's a way to cut through BS and see things more clearly.
But it should come with few small warnings:
- When following these heuristics, I second guess everything I write, which makes it take longer. That's not bad, per se; it's like a whetstone to sharpen your mind. (Case in point: is that an overused simile?? Don't think so, but I had to think about it.) It's a tradeoff to be aware of.
- Obeying rule V (in particular "never use jargon") can lead to disappointment, because jargon is involved in humans forming knowledge-based groups. If you're trying to attract the attention of someone with expertise and you choose to use a common word in place of jargon, they're less likely to tune in.
> As I have tried to show, modern writing at its worst does not consist in picking out words for the sake of their meaning and inventing images in order to make the meaning clearer. 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.
It gives specific examples of ugly and beautiful writing, and tells you how to avoid ugliness yourself. The examples are drawn from real writing, not cheap ad hominem cartoons.
I often plug this book, I really recommend you read it. HN crowd will easily see past some of the datedness of it to the true message which is just as valid today as it ever was.
I also often wonder how things like GMail sentence/phrase autocomplete will affect overall societal phrasing in the future.
I mean, I love this feature, and when I'm writing an email trying to find a mutually agreeable time and place for a meeting I don't want to think that hard about how to phrase it. But over time it feels like that part of my brain that can think of more interesting phrasing will atrophy.
provides no evidence that earlier times had been perennially populated by paragons of literary virtue
That's an astounding alliteration, but I always took from Orwell's essay that this was intended for public communicators like politicians(hence the title), and not literatis. A few years back when I was trying to figure out why someone who seemingly spoke like a fifth grader on purpose had such a tremendous appeal in his run for president, I thought of Politics and the English Language. Sure enough, using very simple language(my favorite was probably "super duper missile"), he could get the attention and support of people who would otherwise never find the motivation to vote.
The politics alluded to in the title involve obfuscating the nasty things done by governments through bureaucratic, convoluted or academic language.
Some of the most effective propagande is very clear and direct. Emerging forms of mass communication - from the radio to twitter - lend themselves particularly well to such lies.
Unfortunately the belief that power desires to mask itself (out of shame?) sometimes proves naïve.
The writing that breaks down the busy writing samples here is quite busy. For good writing tips I always refer to the Elements of Style (1918). A succinct handbook on writing succinctly. Still relevant 100 years later.
Or, "How my own personal preferences can be spun as the ultimate battle of good versus evil."
Yes, we all like it better when people speak clearly. And yes, some people dress up poor quality of thought with complex words and grammar. I hardly think either of those things is unique to the English language, or to Marxism.
So yeah, his first five rules are all pretty much standard techniques of writing, taught in any English comp class. The sixth, to avoid saying anything "outright barbarous", is completely useless as written. It would be a lot clearer to say "All of these rules are guidelines, and sometimes your writing will sound better if you break them."
But mostly this seems to be about him arguing against a strawman. I'm sure plenty of his political opponents write badly. I'm sure plenty of the people he likes write badly, too.
I did find one passage that I liked: it's interesting to note that "fascism" had already lost its meaning by 1946.
