Fortune's Folly is now on Audible!
George Orwell - real name Eric Arthur Blair
June 25, 1903 - 1950
I
came across an essay written by Orwell and was struck by how relevant
these words are today. The essay is too long to post here, but here are a
few paragraphs:
Politics and the English Language, 1946
Most
people who bother with the matter at all would admit that the English
language is in a bad way, but it is generally assumed that we cannot by
conscious action do anything about it. Our civilization is decadent and
our language -- so the argument runs -- must inevitably share in the
general collapse. It follows that any struggle against the abuse of
language is a sentimental archaism, like preferring candles to electric
light or hansom cabs to aeroplanes. Underneath this lies the
half-conscious belief that language is a natural growth and not an
instrument which we shape for our own purposes.
Now, it is clear
that the decline of a language must ultimately have political and
economic causes: it is not due simply to the bad influence of this or
that individual writer. But an effect can become a cause, reinforcing
the original cause and producing the same effect in an intensified form,
and so on indefinitely. A man may take to drink because he feels
himself to be a failure, and then fail all the more completely because
he drinks. It is rather the same thing that is happening to the English
language. It becomes ugly and inaccurate because our thoughts are
foolish, but the slovenliness of our language makes it easier for us to
have foolish thoughts. The point is that the process is reversible.
Modern English, especially written English, is full of bad habits which
spread by imitation and which can be avoided if one is willing to take
the necessary trouble. If one gets rid of these habits one can think
more clearly, and to think clearly is a necessary first step toward
political regeneration: so that the fight against bad English is not
frivolous and is not the exclusive concern of professional writers.
~
...
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 us 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
have not here been considering the literary use of language, but merely
language as an instrument for expressing and not for concealing or
preventing thought. Stuart Chase and others have come near to claiming
that all abstract words are meaningless, and have used this as a pretext
for advocating a kind of political quietism. Since you don't know what
Fascism is, how can you struggle against Fascism? One need not swallow
such absurdities as this, but one ought to recognize that the present
political chaos is connected with the decay of language, and that one
can probably bring about some improvement by starting at the verbal end.
If you simplify your English, you are freed from the worst follies of
orthodoxy. You cannot speak any of the necessary dialects, and when you
make a stupid remark its stupidity will be obvious, even to yourself.
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. One cannot change this all in a moment, but one
can at least change one's own habits, and from time to time one can
even, if one jeers loudly enough, send some worn-out and useless phrase
-- some jackboot, Achilles' heel, hotbed, melting pot, acid test,
veritable inferno, or other lump of verbal refuse -- into the dustbin,
where it belongs.
~~
Orwell was very pro-English--this
was written one year after the end of WWII, and his prejudices are often
apparent. I agree with much of what he states; his rules apply to
writers of prose as well as political writers/journalists.
I
admit I often use long words where short ones will do, because the long
one seems so right. Perhaps that makes me pretentious. I can argue that
it's my characters being pretentious.What would Orwell think if
he knew that computer chat rooms and cell phone text messaging have
created a new version of "English" shorthand? I cringe when I see
phrases like c u l8ter. Maybe I'm just too old to appreciate the beauty
of words that have been condensed to their simplest forms. Or I've been
programmed by years of reading to want a word to be written as a word.
~
– Cat
Interesting research tidbit:
I
have a character in Fortune who is a veteran of the Crimean War, or the
Russian War as it was called in those days. He isn't an old vet, for
the story takes place in 1868, twelve years after the Peace was signed.
He's a young vet of about 36 who plays an important role in the book,
and whose life was forever changed by the War.
Although I plan to
make only brief references to the battles that involved him, I needed
to learn facts about the war, what caused it, who was involved, etc.
I've been researching on the internet. And one word kept coming up to
describe attitudes in Russia and England at the time -- chauvinism.
It had a preconceived notion about the word and thought it had more recent origins. Here's what I found:
The Columbia Encyclopedia, Sixth Edition. 2001-05.
chauvinism
-- word derived from the name of Nicolas Chauvin, a soldier of the
First French Empire. Used first for a passionate admiration of Napoleon,
it now expresses exaggerated and aggressive nationalism. As a social
phenomenon, chauvinism is essentially modern, becoming marked in the era
of acute national rivalries and imperialism beginning in the 19th cent.
It has been encouraged by mass communication, originally by the cheap
newspaper. Chauvinism exalts consciousness of nationality, spreads
hatred of minorities and other nations, and is associated with
militarism, imperialism, and racism. In the 1960s, the term “male
chauvinist” appeared in the women’s liberation movement; it is applied
to males who refuse to regard females as equals.
So there you go
-- the word chauvinism was coined as a term for excessive nationalistic
fervor. (Not unlike global attitudes nowadays, hm?)
Well, as the
19th century wars, like the wars of today, were decided upon, planned
and executed by men, I see chauvinism as a man thing.
Would it be
different if women were in charge? That's a whole other story,
something in the realm of Mythology. Or Science Fiction/Fantasy. To
some, probably, Horror.
Cat
[originally posted 2015]
As
part of this editing process, I opened a spreadsheet and designed it to
keep track of the chapters, the length, and the characters who are in
that chapter.
I
discovered some very long chapters, so I broke them down, recalling an
agent had once commented that short chapters were more reader friendly
than long ones.
I
also discovered that by listing the characters as active, small active,
passive [there but not speaking], I can see if one of them needs a
bigger role, a smaller role, or was not necessary at all in that
chapter.
More discoveries to come, I'm sure.
– Cat
Progress –
Today I reduced my word count by 125 words.
I
came across an unnecessary word. I then decided the sentence that
contained it was unnecessary. As I read further, I asked myself if the
paragraph that contained the unnecessary sentence that contained the
unnecessary word, was necessary. [Oof – sounds like a song!]
And
I laughed. Of course the paragraph, and the two that came after it were
not necessary to the story. They may have added a bit of fluffy
background for a character who isn't the main one, but their presence or
lack thereof made no difference to the plot.
I'll have another update in a few days.
– Cat first posted in 2015
I
read that a university is seeking female spiders for some type of
study. I must emphasize that I did not read the article so have no idea
what, where, or why.
But on such slight information the wheels of whimsy begin to spin.
Thought
I, shouldn't the shortage be of male spiders? Don't female arachnids
kill, then like cannibals eat their mates after the ultimate rapture?
Do
the males know this is going to happen? Who survives to tell them? The
females wouldn't let them know ahead of time--or do they, and thus allow
them to nobly sacrifice their lives for the continuance of the species?
Do
the males perhaps observe this ritual, then knowing what's in store for
them, run for their lives? Is there a band of brothers--a resistance
movement--somewhere living deep underground determined to survive, at
least until the cruel chill of winter brings their life spans to a
melancholy, but natural end?
Were I a writer of fantasy, I could go places with such a premise.
But no. I write romance, and at the moment there's not much romance in a female killing and eating her mate.
Not yet, anyway.
Cat
Chapter
23 began with a description of the setting. You know the type – the sun
sparkled off the water, houses built of grey stone, etc. The main
character did not appear until the third paragraph, and she did nothing
but marvel at the view until in the fifth paragraph another character
appeared.
It
was "lights, camera, action" in a slow sequence. No. I need action
first, get the characters on the stage, then work in the setting and
light as seen through their cameras.
The
setting will not be the way the author envisions it, not the way a
picture shows it, but how the characters see it. And in this scene, one
is entranced, the other bored.
Another thing to watch for as I do my final edit!
– Cat