Ultimately, Orwell claims, bad writing results from corrupt thinking, and often attempts to make palatable corrupt acts: “Political speech and writing are largely the defense of the indefensible.” His examples of colonialism, forced deportations, and bombing campaigns find ready analogues in our own time. Pay attention to how the next article, interview, or book you read uses language “favorable to political conformity” to soften terrible things.
Pretentious diction: Orwell identifies a number of words he says “are used to dress up a simple statement and give an air of scientific impartiality to biased judgments.” He also includes in this category “jargon peculiar to Marxist writing” (“petty bourgeois,” “lackey,” “flunkey,” “hyena”).
What constitutes “outright barbarous” wording he does not say, exactly. As the internet cliché has it: Your Mileage May Vary. You may find creative ways to break these rules without thereby being obscure or justifying mass murder.
But Orwell does preface his guidelines with some very sound advice: “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 and sensations. Afterward one can choose—not simply accept—the phrases that will best cover the meaning.” Not only does this practice get us closer to using clear, specific, concrete language, but it results in writing that grounds our readers in the sensory world we all share to some degree, rather than the airy word of abstract thought and belief that we don’t.
These “elementary” rules do not cover “the literary use of language,” writes Orwell, “but merely language as an instrument for expressing and not for concealing or preventing thought.” In the seventy years since his essay, the quality of English prose has likely not improved, but our ready access to writing guides of all kinds has. Those who care about clarity of thought and responsible use of rhetoric would do well to consult them often, and to read, or re-read, Orwell’s essay.
I think “very” is an overused, mostly meaningless word. Also, more than one exclamation point does not emphasize more.
Good rules. I dislike the use of “exponential increase” for “big increase”, “ecosystem” for “system”, “epicentre” for “centre”, “shell-shocked” for “shocked”, “black hole” for “hole”, “litmus test” for “test” and “tectonic shift” for “big change”. I see that between them these break all the rules except (iv) and (vi).
The word ‘should’ is essentially guilt inducing as in ‘blaming the victim’.It helps protect those of us who can’t accept the random horror of life. Also, don’t get me started on the ridiculous invasion of ‘like’. Every time I hear it misused I flinch. Anyone else notice above thoughts?
Totally agree with you, Patrice. I’ve often described ‘should’ as a judgemental word.