It's Orwell, Baby, Orwell

[PatCarrington]

No, I'm throwing baits.

i want to go fishing with you.

 

[PatCarrington]

From Orwell's essay at the end of meaningless words section.

Now that I have made this catalogue of swindles and perversions, let me give another example of the kind of writing that they lead to. This time it must of its nature be an imaginary one. I am going to translate a passage of good English into modern English of the worst sort. Here is a well-known verse from Ecclesiastes:

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.

Here it is in modern English:

Objective considerations of contemporary phenomena compel 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.

What uses a bigger vocabulary? What says what?

i'm with you 100% on this one.

and i have noticed that people who write prose (or poetry) in the second manner, are always convinced it is good writing.

and the reading level needed to fully comprehend the first is much higher, by the way. as is the writing level needed to lay those words down.

 

[twelveoone]

i'm with you 100% on this one.

and i have noticed that people who write prose (or poetry) in the second manner, are always convinced it is good writing.

and the reading level needed to fully comprehend the first is much higher, by the way. as is the writing level needed to lay those words down.

Today, I just came across an article in an old "New Scientist" criticizing "journalese". I have also read some technical papers written in the 30's and the 40's, some by Nobel prize winners. I can understand them. I really have a tough time with most technical papers written today, but then they probably won't be winning anything. Guess who uses simpler language. On the other hand patent language is a deliberate game, and parts are deliberately obscured, by such tactics.

Not just here.

Yes, I think it is a bad mind set. A hiding.

I wish I had the technical ability to even begin to emulate some of your writing, Pat.

annaswirls, one of my favourites, most of the time no big words
WickedEve, another of my favourites, most of the time no big words, I don't know some of them, had no idea what a dildo was, still it's not a big word, may be a big tool. I don't know, didn't see her collection.
I have no idea what in the hell she is talking about here though.

 

[wildsweetone]

Write what you know.

There's a great deal to be said for this quote from wherever it came. The words we know, what we think, say, and hear, are all words that should enter our writing (whether it be prose or poetry). In this way, we're more likely to make the ebb and flow of our language easier for readers to follow.

As for poetry losing a sense of itself, or of its 'language use'... English is a growing, evolving language. Classics stick around (that's why they're called Classics), and modern day people will study those writings, pick them to pieces and emulate them at will. But just as we are unique, and our experiences of our world are unique (I said this elsewhere today), so is our poetry. Some of what we write resonates within others and it's that connection poetry has with readers that make the poetry what it is.

 

[twelveoone]

There's a great deal to be said for this quote from wherever it came. The words we know, what we think, say, and hear, are all words that should enter our writing (whether it be prose or poetry). In this way, we're more likely to make the ebb and flow of our language easier for readers to follow.

As for poetry losing a sense of itself, or of its 'language use'... English is a growing, evolving language. Classics stick around (that's why they're called Classics), and modern day people will study those writings, pick them to pieces and emulate them at will. But just as we are unique, and our experiences of our world are unique (I said this elsewhere today), so is our poetry. Some of what we write resonates within others and it's that connection poetry has with readers that make the poetry what it is.

Both Orwell and Chomsky were concerned about the unnatural assignment of values (spin)
to words, to writing.
growing, evolving defines also mutation, cancer

"The words we know, what we think, say, and hear, are all words that should enter our writing (whether it be prose or poetry). In this way, we're more likely to make the ebb and flow of our language easier for readers to follow."

all to often this type is what I see; i.e. "know"
"Objective considerations of contemporary phenomena compel 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."

all to often this is what I hear:
like, ya'know

This is what Orwell argues against, not for there-establishment of Shakespearean English.

Both Orwell and Chomsky tell you to be aware of the spins on words, too often things are hidden, behind them.

 

[Lauren Hynde]

From Orwell's essay at the end of meaningless words section.

Now that I have made this catalogue of swindles and perversions, let me give another example of the kind of writing that they lead to. This time it must of its nature be an imaginary one. I am going to translate a passage of good English into modern English of the worst sort. Here is a well-known verse from Ecclesiastes:

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.

Here it is in modern English:

Objective considerations of contemporary phenomena compel 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.

What uses a bigger vocabulary? What says what?

Do you really think the problem with that second version is "bigger vocabulary" or meaningless words?

Don't you think that the main problem with that bureau-speak snippet is not the individual words themselves (which are, regardless of syllable count, frankly accessible), but its structure: redundant, tautological, artificially inflated. You said before "Instictively we know its bullshit" - of course it is! And it's painfully transparent to anyone with a whit of critical rationale.

But the problem doesn't lie with the words. The problem lies with people - emitters and receptors - whose grasp on the language is deteriorating to a point where they can't even make sense of their own thought process.

 

[Lauren Hynde]

Both Orwell and Chomsky were concerned about the unnatural assignment of values (spin)
to words, to writing.
growing, evolving defines also mutation, cancer

Can you think of a single word that hasn't been spun, that hasn't suffered mutations in meaning or value since the time it was first uttered?


A question for all:

Are you really considering (or entertaining the possibility, perhaps) that the modern western language - centred on the utilitarianism of technical reasoning - has somehow deformed the face of the world as we perceive it, or is threatening to do it?

 

[Tathagata]

i have this hazy theory about writing. as a writer grows, the complexity of his/her language grows also. most writers, those without powerhouse ability, stop there. the ones who are glorious climb some sort of word mountain, and their writing moves toward simplicity again, though it is not the same as it was on the other side of the hill. now, they say more with simplicity than they, or others, can with complexity.

This is, of course, Zen or Tao
It applies to everything
Lao Tzu wrote about it in the 6th century BC

I knew I liked you for a number of reasons
I've added another.

Once you learn all the rules and why they exsist...you move beyond rules and whatever you do is "correct" if you will.

There is a huge difference between being simple and being " correct"
so to get past complex you have to first understand and be able to use complex.
If you don't have the vocabulary you can't express complex ideas...
Not that you don't have them..you just can't communicate the " oneness" if you will.

I shudder when I see and hear some of todays " role models" being interviewed
" and it's like, you know, my thing you know? It's what I do you know what I'm sayin'. My art ,like"

Now he/she is talking about what Pat just expressed..
but the whole soul is missing because he/ she doesn't have the words to express the complexity of the thoughts.
How sad is it to sum up your life, your art, with " It's my thing ya know?"

Eventually the use of simpler language reduces everything to a one dimensional world where nothing is special because the ways to describe it and communicate it are so limited

 

[thenry]

To this discussion I would like to mention Ander-Saxon, a language derived in part by William Barnes in the mid 19th century. "He called for the purification of English by removal of Greek, Latin and foreign influences so that it might be better understood by those without a classical education."

Words are "reinterpreted" with Germanic roots to make a "Pure English" as if the Norman invasion of Great Britain had never succeeded.

To be, or not to be: that is the ask-thing: is't higher-thinking in the brain to bear the slings and arrows of outrageous dooming or to take weapons 'gainst a sea of bothers and by againstwork end them?...

 

[flyguy69]

Can you think of a single word that hasn't been spun, that hasn't suffered mutations in meaning or value since the time it was first uttered?


A question for all:

Are you really considering (or entertaining the possibility, perhaps) that the modern western language - centred on the utilitarianism of technical reasoning - has somehow deformed the face of the world as we perceive it, or is threatening to do it?

I am not. Beauty in language evolves just as language itself does; what was regarded as eloquence often now seems stilted. What today seems crass may one day be thought of as poetic. I cannot claim that my definition of beauty is more correct than that of my great-great grandchildren.

As you yourself have suggested, Lauren; the art is not in the words, it is in the thinking behind the words.

 

[Angeline]

lauren - are you making the assumption that complexity automatically equates to quality? or that simplicity automatically equates to a lack thereof?

i think it was rybka who had this little communication in his sig lig, with Faulkner and Hemingway throwing barbs at each other:

Faulkner - I never read one of his books that required a dictionary.

Hemingway's answer - Poor Faulkner. Does he really think big emotions come from big words?

i have read them both. in my opinion, faulkner is not worthy of shining hemingway's shoes.

i have this hazy theory about writing. as a writer grows, the complexity of his/her language grows also. most writers, those without powerhouse ability, stop there. the ones who are glorious climb some sort of word mountain, and their writing moves toward simplicity again, though it is not the same as it was on the other side of the hill. now, they say more with simplicity than they, or others, can with complexity.





that i agree with, of course.

but when big and small words are as good as one another in a situation, i think it is unwise to choose the larger.

so how come when i say, don't worry about long or short word you argue, and when Hynde essentially says the same thing you agree with her?

you make me giggle.

 

[flyguy69]

so how come when i say, don't worry about long or short word you argue, and when Hynde essentially says the same thing you agree with her?

you make me giggle.

Are you saying size doesn't matter? I hope I saved my receipts...

 

[wildsweetone]

...As you yourself have suggested, Lauren; the art is not in the words, it is in the thinking behind the words.

I half agree with this. I think there is an art in the way the words are used, a carefully turned phrase is poetry. Understanding is in the thinking behind the words.

A question for all:

Are you really considering (or entertaining the possibility, perhaps) that the modern western language - centred on the utilitarianism of technical reasoning - has somehow deformed the face of the world as we perceive it, or is threatening to do it?

I think 'deformed' is an inflammatory word. It's 'changed' the world as we perceive it.

The retaliation would be to spread the world with new, old and wonderful words with exceptional meanings and thus drown out the downward spiral of deforming the language.

 

[Lauren Hynde]

I think 'deformed' is an inflammatory word. It's 'changed' the world as we perceive it.

The retaliation would be to spread the world with new, old and wonderful words with exceptional meanings and thus drown out the downward spiral of deforming the language.

Changed is good. It's what I meant. The word 'deformed' has had a very bad spin from its original meaning.

Would you subscribe to the idea of spreading the world with new, old and wonderful words with exceptional meanings and thus drown out the downward spiral of changing the language in the direction of the all-absorbing utilitarianism of technical reasoning?

 

[wildsweetone]

Changed is good. It's what I meant. The word 'deformed' has had a very bad spin from its original meaning.

Would you subscribe to the idea of spreading the world with new, old and wonderful words with exceptional meanings and thus drown out the downward spiral of changing the language in the direction of the all-absorbing utilitarianism of technical reasoning?

Isn't that what many word players attain to do?

 

[Lauren Hynde]

Isn't that what many word players attain to do?

Oh, absolutely. But 'word player' has had a very bad spin as well, and I was trying to clarify that position.

Would you mind if I were to use that "new, old and wonderful words with exceptional meanings" sentence in something I'm writing?

 

[PatCarrington]

so how come when i say, don't worry about long or short word you argue, and when Hynde essentially says the same thing you agree with her?

you make me giggle.

because it's too much fun arguing with you to agree with you.

actually, you and lauren didn't say the same thing....not even essentially....she asked what if the bigger word was BETTER....

 

[wildsweetone]

Oh, absolutely. But 'word player' has had a very bad spin as well, and I was trying to clarify that position.

Would you mind if I were to use that "new, old and wonderful words with exceptional meanings" sentence in something I'm writing?

I was going to say 'wordsmith' but couldn't include myself in that. lol

Feel free to use the quote, so long as you share what you've written!

 

[Angeline]

Are you saying size doesn't matter? I hope I saved my receipts...

well there's a mimimum standard in all things, but other than that that, no.

 

[Angeline]

because it's too much fun arguing with you to agree with you.

actually, you and lauren didn't say the same thing....not even essentially....she asked what if the bigger word was BETTER....

We didn't say "exactly" the same words, but you know darn well we were both talking about the quality of word choice.

Anyway, even if I *had* made my point in the context of erm word length, you still would have argued. You just do. With me.



and where is *Catbabe*? she'd agree with me damnit. she likes to disagree with you, too.

 

[PatCarrington]

We didn't say "exactly" the same words, but you know darn well we were both talking about the quality of word choice.

Anyway, even if I *had* made my point in the context of erm word length, you still would have argued. You just do. With me.



and where is *Catbabe*? she'd agree with me damnit. she likes to disagree with you, too.

how come you didn't curse at me.


cat does most of her scratching in private....

 

[Lauren Hynde]

actually, you and lauren didn't say the same thing....not even essentially....she asked what if the bigger word was BETTER....

You should know that if you had by any chance suggested to "Never use a short word where a long one will do", I would be here fighting you and counteracting with a "Never use a long word where a short one will do better".

 

[PatCarrington]

You should know that if you had by any chance suggested to "Never use a short word where a long one will do", I would be here fighting you and counteracting with a "Never use a long word where a short one will do better".

i already knew that.

....and i agree with ange about the hair.

 

[Angeline]

how come you didn't curse at me.


cat does most of her scratching in private....

cause i didn't feel like it then, you bastard.

is that better?

 

[wildsweetone]

A little 'net stumbling...

Elements of Literature - Diction