A number of years ago, I wrote a book review of a book about education for an education journal. I wrote it in clear, direct English. The editor said it was too simple, and I should remember that I was writing for highly literate professors. So I Frenchified it and Latinated it; he wrote back to say it was too ornate, that professors were busy people who needed something more direct. In my third version, I returned to the original but sprinkled in a few words of French and Latin origin to assuage the editor's sensibilities. He published it at last. I doubt he ever read Orwell.
The academic world really does like to huff its own farts sometimes, huh? It sucks you had to fuck around to find the editor's Goldilocks zone of "ornate".
Just reply with ye' olde', "If you cannot explain it to a six year old, you do not understand it yourself." It is painfully true. Anyone who says otherwise is Dunning Kruger incarnate.
@@ashkebora7262 - That's the most truthful statement I've read in months here on TH-cam - And it almost goes without saying that those who make reference to Dunning Kruger are the best examples of it themselves - not including you. One politician who exhibits such in spades is Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. The crown jewel of DKE -
I remember when gas was cheap. I would take drives in the country that would last longer than that. At 6 a gallon, I stay at work and sleep in the parking lot.
I remember running into the issue of "meaningless words" in my high school philosophy classes. Our teacher would ask us to define terms like justice or fairness when using them in discussions, and we discovered that we were debating things that had different meanings to some of us. It was a good exercise, because we then ran into unavoidable ambiguities, which are the core of disagreements.
@@jursamaj Yes, and it´s more productive to establish the latter, but often we waste time on ambiguous concept instead. Speaking/writing past eachother because of definitions
Since it was a intro philosophy course, I am certain that the point wasn't meaningless words, but an intro to Platonic Forms and Socratic Dialogue. They become meaningless words when thrown out there as thought stoppers and declarations. But the Platonic view is that there are some concepts that are in fact universal, but are so ineffable that we only have access to distortions and life is about becoming increasingly aware of the truth of the concept.
This reminds me of the way Jordan Peterson talks. The fact that Orwell felt this way about our language comes as somewhat of a relief to me. I was a creative writing major in college, because I love writing and I want to be an author. I'd been writing my whole life by then, but oh boy, was I unprepared for what I had signed up for. The way my professors expected me to write was not at all how I wanted to write. Basically, they wanted me to write pretensiously, using language that was unclear and almost intentionally meant to befuddle the reader. Whenever I would point out that there was a better way to phrase something to make it simpler and less confusing, they would come at me with, "Well, do you WANT your writing to be simple? Don't you want to make your readers think?" I knew they were never going to accept that there is value in writing "simplistic, nonliterary fiction." I picked my degree up from the bursars office and left with the empty feeling that I'd wasted my time entirely. I guess what I'm trying to say is that I felt alone in school, because it seemed to me that no one else could see what I saw. Anyway, thank you for this video. Brilliant, as always.
Sounds like your kind is waiting for you on the Archive of Our Own! (I hope you already knew of AO3 before today.) Also if someone like Chuck Tingle can find success in the INCREDIBLY NICHE spot he's chosen to write in and sound "simplistic" (and provoke thought ANYWAY and despite how absurd it keeps starting off-- seriously I didn't think I'd have so much to ponder from a story about an emo aromantic dinosaur biker at a magical school)? You can DEFINITELY find a spot too. (Also that degree sounds like you got a rather expensive course on what not to do, which IS technically not a waste of time-- now you know how to write pretentiously, without clarity and with intent to confuse, so you also know how to write the opposite-- and also know how to write a villain who's deliberately using that kind of language to sway the masses and obfuscate his true goals! See, it's not completely wasted! Everything is food to the writer!
It's ironic that jordan peterson book was the first that came to my mind too , it was the first book i felt jaded with every chapter i read , or maybe it is because simplicity is my preference, some people see the beauty of it , but most just feel smarter reading simple points made way more complex and ambiguous
I want to make them think about the things I wrote, not wonder what I wrote. ...or something to that effect, English ain't my first language. ...so these profs thought making sentences riddles was good?
Don't be down, because you are actually right. I had a similar feeling when I picked up my degree. Many of my peers were hurahhing and celebrating the fact that they were now officially smart. I, by contrast, although I'd done well enough, felt stupider than I had before I enrolled. My three years of study had just served to compound in me how little I knew. Write your way, not theirs. It's better that your work should eminate humility than pretenciousness. Oh, and another feeling I had that day, more of an insight really, was how dumb many of my professors were--like big kids who had never really left school and lived in the outside world. How can you write about a world you have never lived in? Not even Shakespeare could have done that.
I first read this essay around 6 years ago. It was my favorite thing I read in all of high school, and pretty much the only thing I remember from my English classes. Ironically, those English classes still had bloated wordcount requirements that were extremely hard to reach without writing terribly.
I don't think this applies much to politics today. He seems to be describing postmodernism more than modern politics. Modern politicians make an effort to speak more like the "common man" (ie more clearly). They obfuscate, of course, but in a different way to the one Orwell is describing.
I hate both minimum and maximum word counts. I'm currently writing an essay on Mechanics and there is a minimum word count of 1300. With the material we were provided from the school lessons alone I can't even fully explain the concepts in only 1300 words let alone material from other sources which teachers often like you to cite in essays. I consider myself to be a concise writer too.
Woah you sent me down a really interesting rabbit hole regarding British politics, market driven reforms, Cuba in the 90's and a whole bunch of other interesting shit with one short but clever remark. Thanks!
Orwellian isn't meaningless. It's used as a retort against the condemnation of dehumanizing attutudes... an ideology of "how dare you complain to us about the terms we use against you?" It's become useless as a term for most people because of the fact that it's been claimed by prescriptivists and RWAs, but it is by no means meaningless.
It could certainly be said that -were we to suppose the kinds of linguistic mannerisms that we might not have expected the school of 'Orwellian thought' to much disagree with, in the veritable likeness of one becoming one's own worst enemy, the seldom specific means by which that aforementioned phrasing is not _rarement mentionné_ wouldn't perhaps be unreasonable to describe by way of its own intended meaning.
George Carlin had a bit on "useless language" where he discussed filler words and meaningless jargon that cloud todays political and social discourse. Truly brilliant
Ah yes, the famous bit where he alledges that "People in need of special assistance" means "cripples", even though it includes the elderly, children, post-surgery patients, people with mental or developmental disabilities and more, says we should call PTSD "shell shock" even though it can have a variety of non-combat related causes, and says that toilet paper is now called "bathroom tissue", even though it's clearly not. I love Carlin as much as the next guy, but sometimes, he was just wrong.
@@alljedimustdie2839 he was a comedian. jokes aren't perfect water-tight academic papers. his way of thinking was outside of the box at the time and sorely lacking in american pop culture which is why he's so revered. but you're right, he was wrong sometimes.
I can't say I agree with his views on double negatives. For example, "I can't say I agree" seems a bit more sympathetic to the position than saying "I disagree", or ,"not uncommon" sounds slightly rarer than saying "common". The english language isn't like maths, a double negative isn't exactly the same as a positive, and can be the more precise way of conveying what you want to say.
I felt the same. Often, pairs of words like common/uncommon have a more complex relationship than perfect opposites - for example, something can be neither common nor uncommon. This means that, as you say, the double “negative” doesn’t work as expected. Also, I forget the exact term (anchoring maybe?), but I think that sometimes an element of psychology could be involved in the way we interpret such statements (even with perfect opposite pairs) where we are predisposed to expect a more negative or positive meaning to the phrase whether we read “not” first.
It's softening the blow, which is, technically speaking, emotional manipulation, right? Your INTENT is to be kind, but the end result is still wording it so they don't get upset/angry at you for disagreeing.
@@neoqwerty To me, being sympathetic to a position means "I can understand your reasons and why someone might be persuaded by them, but I personally am not", and that's the tone of the response I would be aiming for if I were using the phrase, "I can't say I agree". I guess if someone wanted to be controlling in a very subtle way, this is something they could use, but imo you'd need to be a master of communication for it to work, so in some rare situations, I agree with you. When I hear it being used, it makes me think that they are on a similar wavelength to me, are listening to my arguments, and think I am somewhat reasonable, but just have a different point of view. It also just seems friendlier
@@faresBtoush1990 You only read what you wanted to read in all of that. In your view, being accurate about what you think is 'political positioning' - meaning we'd all be taking black or white positions under your logic. No nuance can exist if you think nothing but "yes" and "no" can exist. You've completely misunderstood the video, good job.
@@henryginn7490 Well couldn't you just say the former? I know it's more wordy but isn't it more precise? Would everyone interpret "I can't say I agree" to have such a sentiment, even when applying the "correct tone"? Personally I'd still expect an explanation if this were part of a true dialogue about something.
That's one of the things that marks a great writer: Understanding and acceptance that language is not static and needs to adapt to change, as opposed to just whinging about new slang terms or emojis existing or whatever the current complaint is.
"language is not static and needs to adapt to change, as opposed to just..." That's true enough but the other extreme to avoid is just accepting any change whatsoever. There are so many ways in English to emphasize and exaggerate language already and too many people are trying to drag 'literally' into that sphere. It's one of only two words that denote _literal language_ (the other being 'actually') and these idiots want to weaken and muddy the language by not only eliminating one of those few options but even swapping it to a nearly opposite meaning.
New language is pretty binary; it either useful or it isn't. The useless examples, such as pure nonsense like 'irregardless', should absolutely be expunged and corrected when encountered. Using 'prescriptivism' as a pejorative is just completely asinine.
Like that webcomic. “Look, new slang is gonna keep happening and you’re gonna have to keep learning what it means. If you put your foot down and stop, that’s the moment you become old.”
I just finished reading Animal Farm and even when using symbolisms, Orwell doesn’t leave much room for interpretation. It never comes as pretentious, it’s a simple yet effective tale.
I came across this comment today, and I'm halfway through Animal Farm. Just wanted to add that when it comes to fiction, these rules shouldn't apply. As you say he is very direct in that book, which is one of the reasons I'm finding it kind of boring to read. In my opinion, fiction SHOULD be (or maybe not should, but have the option to be) more vague and poetic to make the reader play with their fantasy, that's atleast the type of writings I enjoy to read more than getting plain information straight on
@@mikemodano863 Fair enough! But I would like to think that rules and "shoulds" are exempt from the creative world. I would also argue that he doesn't give plain information straight on as you suggested; after all, he does use symbolism and metaphors to present his message so I wouldn't call his writing as giving the readers straight information. On a side note, have you read 1984? The message is still evident, but it's a damn good book (in my opinion)
@@Andrea-movies Yeah that's why I corrected myself with the "should". Yes I did read 1984, and I agree that it was good, but it was also very different from Animal Farm, just took it as an example just because it IS pretty straight forward (to me atleast), even if there is symbolism it is too obvious that it becomes a bit corny, but then again it's a fable and somewhat of a satire so it fulfills its purpose I suppose
@@mikemodano863 Good art is the one that the author liked, because it means other people can find it pleasant as well. You can just read how 1984 is written, how direct the message is and how grim and political everything feels, and that's how he felt about it, I like the book because of that same reason, it speaks like urgency, like no matter the year, the reader can feel warned about the world. He could've written books in a more poetic way, using more vague imagery, but that's dishonest, that's something other writer should do (Brave new world is a more poetic book in that regard)
Bertrand Russell was an extremely clear writer, especially for a philosopher. It was said to me once that if you still struggle with the concepts of philosophy after reading Russell, then it’s the philosophy that’s difficult. Russell also wrote a short essay about writing titled ‘How I Write’ in which he gave similar advice to Orwell. The Elements of Style by William Strunk Jr. and E.B. White gives advice on how to keep writing clear and simple. Originally composed in 1918 and later updated in 1959, it is a book that has stood the test of time and highly recommended. Great video as usual. Really enjoyed it.
Strunk and White are definitely not a good source. There are very many issues with their advice, and they don't follow it particularly eagerly themselves in their writing.
Re: Strunk and White, let's consider this bit: "Different than. Here logic supports established usage: one thing differs from another, hence, different from. Or, other than, unlike." No, that's not how logic works. Nearly any time they claimed logic was on their side, they had a rather peculiar sense of how logic works.
I remember that book (elements of style); thanks for the trip down memory lane. I'm glad I learned fundamentals of english syntax and composition in high school. You need to know the rules before you can break them and even then only with intention. My teacher would always say "a walk through the forest is that much more interesting if you're able to name the trees". "On Writing" had some helpful tips as well for those who want to write. I recall importance of phrase "edit, edit, edit", which amongst many other things is when you're able to remove unnecessary words. This is akin to trimming the bushes so as to better see the roses.
This makes so much sense! I finished 1984 yesterday (i love these coincidances of life) and i actually decided to read it in English, even though it's not my native language. And i was shocked by how easy the language was. I could read the book quite quickly and wasn't overwhelmed by the language at all. I loved it. And when it comes to humanities - I agree with Orwell 100%. I studied art history for 5 years and it is still impossible to me to read some scholars that are important to ar thistory, but just sound so complicated, that they make me feel very stupid, because I simply don't know what they are trying to say.
I had the same experience reading 1984. It was like the story was playing as a film in my mind. Edit: (English is my first language and I still find a lot of English conversation and writing to be confusing and uninspired. I noticed this same issue when I was learning Spanish. The author or speaker makes a huge difference).
@@barockobummer2448 You seem like a dick who (incorrectly) believes they are superior. Why are you degrading a book that not only had a legend behind it, but someone who was socialist, a political philosophy Lenin (your current pfp) would actually be sympathetic of but not fully supported its lack of zeal or actual realistic applicable methods. The rich don't give up ground to be fair, just look at history, or even Ukraine and Russias petty and childish border war. How naive of humanity.
11:30 - I think Orwell may be closer to your position than this essay suggests. In a letter to Henry Miller, responding to people who criticised Joseph Conrad for his “florid style”, he wrote that “… if your motto is to ‘Cut out the adjectives’, why not go a bit further and revert to a system of grunts and squeals, like the animals?” He seems to acknowledge that good writing doesn’t have to be completely stripped-down and minimalistic, as long as the floridity is not meaningless, pretentious or misleading. Great video, really enjoyed this.
I think it’s pretty obvious that there’s a sweet spot. Orwell’s own invention to characterise authoritarian hell is ‘Newspeak’ and that is incredibly utilitarian. His position on writing still called for strong imagery, so it’s obvious that he stands only against “over-complication” and not just any degree of complexity whatsoever
I feel that there needs to be a distinction made between factual/non-fiction and fiction here. Fiction can afford to be slightly less precise since it aims to communicate things more artistically ( also it bears mentioning that some of Conrad’s work like Heat of Darkness literally explores the idea of perspective and objectivity).
Joseph conrad always gives me chills, there can be an accounting for tastes too. And sometimes we rationalize our tastes into our understanding and world view. Lots of pointless disagreements start like this ime
Your timing is perfect Alex! 16 of march I got elected as councillor for a city in The Netherlands for the Party for the Animals. Your video convinced me to try to use simple words as much as I can, and think of creative metaphors. Thanks.
This is great advice for programmers too. I'm a game developer and the most frustrating code to deal with is typically bloated and imprecise. It takes longer to read and understand, it's harder to test, it's more likely to have bugs and it's orders of magnitude less performant. The parallels are striking.
Exactly. We don't write code for machines. We write code for other coders. Unless you are typing out 1s and 0s. I often tell my junior developers to start with plain English. Understand the problem, describe it clearly, then codify it. The worst thing I see daily are paragraphs of gibberish in a comment above a routine that shouldn't need an explanation.
It’s crazy that completely by chance I read this essay 2 days ago in a version of Orwell’s ‘Why I Write’. Alex’s analysis helps drive the important points home for sure.
@@whitedog510 Interestingly, you are probably right. It's unlikely, this video was recommended to him by chance. Rather because he may have googled certain things regarding orwell. This got then fed to google's algorithms and thus the video showed up his recommendations. Brilliant, really... spooky, too.
But what do you mean by “read”? I think that depends on your definition of reading. To read is to understand but Jordan Peterson already understands that he speaks perfectly and precisely so therefore he has already read everything.
This is such a fascinating subject! Especially when you compare how these "guidelines" apply in different languages. As someone from the Netherlands, my generation has often been accused of ruining the Dutch language by Anglifying our speech. In return, we see linguistic protectionism to an almost ridiculous extent. This can lead to confusion in (for example) conversations about technology because the Dutch equivalent is not the colloquial term. The foreign one is.
@@GregVidua First thing that came to mind for me is my Dutch teacher insisting we wrote 'kredietkaart' instead of creditcard. To this day I have never heard someone use the Dutch word for it, either written or spoken. Another example is the French using the word ‘ordinateur’ instead of ‘computer’. Or ‘SIDA’ instead of ‘AIDS’. While most of Europe uses the English word / abbreviation.
@@GregVidua handshoenen? Im not from the Netherlands but from Sweden and this word sounds like “hand shoes” to me. Is it the Dutch word for “gloves” because, if so, … sneaky!
One thing that I think is missing from analyses such as Orwell's is the aesthetic or emotional aspect of language. I've seen this a lot in higher education, where universities such as Harvard use Latin for mottos. Sometimes the priority in speaking is not to provide clarity, but rather to evoke a certain emotion. An example of "younger generations corrupting the English Language" is the popular phrase "you're not wrong." This is often used when someone makes a statement, often at the expense of the person responding. It literally means "you're right," but the double negative gives the impression that while the speaker is willing to admit that the other person is not incorrect, they are not willing to admit that they are right. Similarly, I might say "it's common to see someone say this," but "it's not uncommon" "feels" slightly different, in the way that "the glass is half full" and "the glass is half empty" mean the same thing as "there is a half-glass of [liquid], but each phrase evokes a different emotion.
I hate "the glass is half full" because whenever I hear it, I think "was it once full and you drank half, then it's half empty, but if you only filled it half way then it's half full" it's still a shit metaphor.
Orwell is just exposing the problems with modern schooling. As someone who loves dissambiguity, I do really appreciate Orwell's ideas, and your video on them
When I was in art school, I learned the rules of design. My teachers impressed on me that these were tools not fetters. These rules are the same. They can help you identify weaknesses in your own expression and writing and can provide a guide if you get into trouble or something just doesn't feel right but you should not anguish over applying the rules, especially in the first draft. Use the rules to identify the cliff edge and then decide yourself if you want to jump off.
Based on the title and introduction, I thought you were going to lament modern informal and colloquial language (eg on social media). I’m glad to see this was much more intelligent and thoughtful than that alternative
I agree with part of this and disagree with other parts. For instance, I know it's fun to rib politicians about their use of the passive voice but often times these politicians aren't directly responsible for the actions/mistakes of their departments etc. So, "mistakes were made" is actually more accurate than "I made a mistake." It is also unhelpful in those cases to name all the people (inside the various departments etc) who have contributed to the specific mistake in question. Furthermore, the use of passive voice and double-negatives and such gives a subtlety to thought that is lost in the direct/active speech. Saying "I agree with you" carries a different tone/connotation to saying "I don't disagree with you": the latter implies that there is more to the story. Now, obviously these things can be overused intentionally (and maliciously) to obfuscate the main point: and we should avoid and condemn this wherever possible. But, often times the beauty of language lies in its elasticity and the way it can be kneaded and stretched to convey the same point differently.
I agree that double negatives have genuinely different meanings than no-negatives. Especially for words that are on abscale, and not binary. "It's not uncommon" means "it doesn't happen below ~10% of the time", or "it happens a least ~10% of the time", while "it's common" means "it happens at least 30-50% of the time" There's "it's common" (>50%), "it's not common" (10%) and "it's uncommon" (
this is why i always hated word limits when doing school assignments. i had to deliberately use meaningless words just to try and reach it, when my shorter version summarized all of my arguments very clearly.
Politicians literally cannot give a "straight answer", the entire system is set up in a way to disincentivize giving direct answers. It's bad obviously, the ideal is people saying what they think, but the system has to change first.
I can't speak for all nations, but in the US Bernie Sanders proved you can have success in many ways using active speech with clear words. Of course, Bernie didn't win his election, but that is because of many factors some out of his control and some in his control. However, I would say that his active and clear speech lead to his massive popularity and notoriety in politics.
@@Ghettofinger As someone from South Africa I can confirm it exists here in a slightly worse form. Here we have the case where they try this same linguistic gymnastics but English isn't their first language so its still gymnastics but you can tell they've not exercised a day in their lives.
Our dutch PM Rutte Global liberal is lying all the time behind his noncense phrases. It is tiring for us but deliberately done. And no one is interested in politics or ( forbidden) debate. They give us footbal and beer instead......
In Canada, parliament holds a weekly session called "question period" in which any member of parliament (but typically from the opposition) can ask questions of other MPs (typically from the government side. It is well named because questions are certainly asked. Of course, it is not called "answer period" for somewhat obvious reasons. But it is not just that the responses do not address the question but that the questions are loaded.
I'd like to see more content like that from a broader area of academics. I really enjoy your videos on veganism and atheism but a mix with that kind of topics could be even better.
Atheism is bullshit. Its the same as saying I dont believe in my eye because i have never seen it. Reflections do not count because then every majesty of nature is a reflection of God
@@Legenddeadman4ever Cha cha real smooth. While I appreciate the directness and lack of pretense and of course not using a dead of dying metaphor. I do think here a little word dressing could do some good? Maybe a little eyeliner or some bangs to hide the snuck premises better? Just some suggestions
@@Legenddeadman4ever this has to be the most hollow strawman of strawiest strawman of strawman I have ever heard, when a 9 year old Christian gets mad jesus is not son of god kekW.
Excellent video. Regarding dying metaphors, I feel that for a non-native English speaker like me, it can be harder to identify those. We constantly keep learning new phrases and idioms, and they don't usually come in the order of their age.
Very much agreed! I was thoroughly surprised, when Cosmic said, that he thought "rule of thumb" and "skating on thin ice" are dying metaphors. Because to me, they aren't at all. I think something like "Banging the drums of war" is a better fit for a "dying metaphor" and generally the idioms that don't really apply in todays world. People are still skating - including on thin ice. No one is actually banging drums while marching to war...
Another is “turning swords to ploughshares” which means to convert wartime resources into peacetime resources or to actively push for peace. But very few people farm and very few people subsistence farm, so ploughshares are not common anymore.
I found myself imagining speaking with Orwell: "I must say sir, you are an excellent interlocutor that I, and indeed all of us, must hold in the highest esteem of our modern intellectual cannon... Oh, don't look at me like that George, I'm just trying to get your goat."
The great thing about English not being my first language is that my speech is direct and to the point 😂 I can’t indulge my speech with petulant words and dying metaphors, I already have to translate everything to English before speaking, and that’s tough enough.
The best trick you can ever use when learning a new language is to stop translating things in your head. Shortcircuit that by attempting to position yourself in a state of thought and perception that is raw, not through the lens of something you know. Just like a child learns their first language. Raw input to raw perception. The languages will live separately in your head and you'll be faster using the second one.
@@empyrionin I wish I could do that, but whenever I can't find the word in English, my mind goes into survival mode and starts frantically searching for the word within the other languages I speak. I am like a multilingual child😆
@@grabble7605 Your contribution might be an affront and less than pleasant to Andrea Cumunel, notwithstanding the aforementioned contributor's selectivity in word placement and syntax portrayed an erudite mastery in a language they were, by their admission, not accustomed to.
This video clearly had a great impact on me, since the night after watching it, I dreamt. I don’t remember much about the dream, but in it, the expression “bad as a boardroom door” came to me. I have no idea what it means, but feel free to use this extremely fresh metaphor in any way you like.
I'm going to steal it and apply it to the next time my tabletop group is in Tomb of Horrors levels of deep shit. "This situation looks bleak... Indeed, it's as bad as boardroom door."
I would add that creating your own metaphors rather than using the beaten ones, as well as making them clear to any given reader/listener without additional explanation, is a very fun and enjoyable part of communication.
My main disagreement in this is about jargon. I think jargon _is_ dangerous in a political context where people are simply using it to appear more informed than they actually are, but I think jargon is absolutely necessary in an academic context where you need to communicate very complex ideas in as few words as possible. Two mathematicians could have a discussion about Groups which would be completely nonsensical to the average person, but would be nigh impossible if you had to unpack the jargon every time you wanted to talk about a concept. The same logic would apply to something like gender studies as well. Writing an academic paper requires jargon so other academics don't have to trudge through pages of explanations for concepts they already know.
It's interesting, especially in humanities, that jargon is used to express a complex idea in as few words as possible - but then you combine it with as much verbal dressing as you possibly can squeeze on top.
I agree. Part of the problem is words having both everyday and academic meanings, and I think (particularly in the humanities), uninformed critics will try to pick apart what someone is saying by using an everyday interpretation of an academic statement. This fortunately doesn't happen as much in maths, but it would be as strange as someone looking at the definition of a group and saying "That's absurd! I live with a group of people, and they don't have a binary operation defined on them." Also yes, thank Bob for jargon. Can't imagine having to say "a set together with a binary operation defined on its elements, satisfying closure, associativity and the existence of an identity element" every time I meant "group".
@@hughcaldwell1034 And for me, you don't need to - I already knew what a group (in math) was in the first place. 😀 My point was more that in any field, you usually define technical terms by reference to _other_ technical terms. Now if you want to explain terms to the general public, you obviously can't do that, but you inevitably need at least a paragraph where you could formerly use one technical term. Target audience matters. A lot.
Just get your words to help the others mind touch the reality, the substance you're wanting to convey or meet in. This is the essence of pure and clear writing.
I liked in Bonhoeffer’s biography how its explained that his family is trained to not waste words or ideas. Not to spew ideas without contemplating them nor speak without organizing.
Excellent video, as always. Or should I say doubleplusgood!? And a nice break from your more deeply philosophical offerings. One of Orwell's six rules brings to mind something E.M. Forster wrote (I fear I'll mangle the quote): the best writing is that to which no word may be added nor from which any word may be removed. Finally, how lovely to see Orwell's actual grave. Thank you for that bit of (dare I say) icing on the cake. Erm...instead, is "edit on the TikTok" a better metaphor?
I learned so much from my Catholicism Professor. Having to take a 200 level Religious studies class had me going in with some low expectations, but he was all about concise and precise language. He despised words as filler and really helped me mold the way I even looked at language. I believe it helped me greatly in writing essays, fiction and poetry.
Thank you Alex, very clearly summarised and presented. Orwell’s essay here is rather a lesson in clarity of thought and precise writing. At least that’s how I have understood it. More of these please Alex, they are very helpful.
I believe the Judith Butler quote won an award for being especially unclear. The mention of it in the video really caught my interest. I have always been sceptical to the humbug accusations when it comes to writing in the humanities, maybe especielly when it comes to gender studies. Don't get me wrong, I have no idea what she is saying either, but it is almost as though people assume that the whole field is just meaningless jargon because they use complicated words and phrases that laymen doesn't understand. I have a background in physics, and this sort of thing of course exist here as well, but specific language is much more accepted because physics has a view of being almost intrinsically objective in contrast to for example gender studies. Why is it that physicists can use complicated language that very few understand, but when experts in gender studies to the same they get critizised?
I am glad you are asking this question because I think more STEM people should try to understand this and not be so dismissive of the humanities. I have an engineering background but I started to read philosophy out of personal interest. I think philosophy terms are unlucky in that they seem similar enough to everyday words, even though they have very specific meanings different from their everyday counterparts. So when people not familiar with its context read a sentence like the Butler quote and it is unintelligible to them they think it's the authors fault, since those everyday words normally should make sense. They don't have the same expectation when it comes to science terms, since those terms do not have everyday counterparts and people do not have the false assumption to understand that jargon. Unfortunately there is no shortcut to understand philosophy texts like this one. They are written for experts in the field and it takes years of study to fully understand. And just as you suggested, it is unfair to criticize this when it is regarded as given that scientific papers can also only be fully understood by experts in their respective fields as well.
I study Linguistics and am a non-native speaker of English, and I completely agree with your sentiment. Physics and Sociology have one thing in common: Terminology. What differs is that Sociology and other humanities tend to use a lot of Latinate and Grecian (see what I did there?) vocabulary with "x of y (of z)" constructions as terms. Those we expect to be very specific and have complex definitions. . Physics, and especially Astrophysics, uses a lot very vague and generic words and phrases as terms instead, like "Black Hole", "Dark Matter" that we expect to be easy to understand and casually use, but they tend to be just as specific and narrowly defined as terms in humanities even though the constructions "(z) y x" are more easily digestible to us because they come from English (Germanic). -So, no matter what kind of academic text you read, you need to be able to spot when a word is a term and when it's not. If we extrapolate the difference in academia to be a general linguistic difference, I think something becomes clear: Germanic languages, like English, tend to focus on the *way* things behave and are, whereas Romance languages and Greek focus on the *positioning* of things. We can see this in how the two different language families use verbs: in English, you *climb* a mountain or a tree no matter which direction you are going. The verb describes the way you behave. Like, we can probably imagine you using your arms or getting sweaty. in Latin words, you *ascend* and *descend* depending on which direction you are going, but the verb doesn't describe anything about how you behave. In either language, you can optionally use adverbs and prepositions to add the information you are missing from the other, but, studies have shown that speakers of Romance languages retain information about positioning and movement in space better than Germanic speakers, while the latter retain information about the manner of movement better. Anyway, the point is that I think a lot of academic language has inherited a way of conveying information that draws heavily on the way Romance languages do things, and this is why it seems abstract to English speakers,,, however As an avid reader of academic texts, I have to say that the Judith Butler text was complicated, yes. But I would be able to break it down once I had looked up all the definitions of the terms. The example Orwell gave of good writing did not make sense to me at all. (probably something to do with me being a 2nd language speaker of English) What strikes me as irritating about this George Orwell essay is how Linguistically naive it is. It is unironically good advice for when trying to communicate information in an amicable way, but the fact is that so much of language is not about conveying the truth and more about informing others about yourself (word choice) and your opinions on what is being said (tiny adverbs like "though" have a huge impact), and sometimes your intended audience are not friendly, in which case passives are a great tool. We can't really police language because it already exists. So we should teach people how it is used and strategies to get people to use language against language instead. For instance, what is the response to "Mistakes were made."? -"By who?" It's already built into the language. ps. I also disagree with Orwell that passives are generally bad. It depends on what kind of entity is the subject. If it's a thing we expect to be actively able to do stuff, we expect active verbs, but if it's a dead object then we expect passives. "The pig got its bristles cut." vs "The broom got its bristles cut" vs "The pig's bristles were cut" vs "The broom's bristles were cut"
My two cents is that it seems a lot easier (and physicists more willing) to provide a definition of a specific term in physics than gender studies professors do for their own field. From what I've seen, physicists seem less likely to resort to the "Courtier's reply" (read this book!/it's not my job to educate you!) I'd also agree that Orwell was not doing linguistics, but that raises the question: Did he intend to do linguistics? It seems to me that he wasn't. He was giving advice for good political writing, which often involves people rather than nonliving objects. Personally I'd object to his rejection of the "not un-" construction as well. It shows more uncertainty than the plain form.
@@vampyricon7026 I don't know how one would go about objectively testing this, but are you sure about your first observation? Who are those gender studies professors that resort to "Courtier's reply"? I'd be more inclined to believe that this is a biased perspective you may have received from social media websites. I have seen many terminally online people who are completely out of touch with reality display that sort of behaviour, but it's probably not as common with academics. Also, you can probably think of a similarly small number of experts in science with inflated egos that are unwilling to explain things in their domain and look down on people. I think most experts, whether in science or the humanities, actually enjoy explaining concepts about the topics they have been studying for their whole lives. I agree with your next two paragraphs, well put.
exactly! im a huge fan of this guys work but this video has a few bad takes. the way hes extolls Orwell's advice feels a bit prescriptivist, especially as he wasnt really clear about how narrow of a range of communication these guidelines are relevant for. and then dismissing esteemed feminist scholars as writing nonsense because its too complicated for him to understand? thats a weird move, i would expect him to have more humility about the scope of his ignorance. for me, the Judith Butler quote was easier to follow than the bible verse because thats the kind of writing ive been reading lately, which really bothers me because im not smarter than him, so i can tell he just never actually tried to understand scholarly humanities writing. the fact that he doesnt seem to know/care how his dismissiveness cooperates with a larger dismissal of feminist thought is concerning too.
Continuing our review of the language of the elected, it seems that, linguistically, politicians hit their truest stride when they find themselves in trouble. At times like these, the explanations typically begin with a single word: miscommunication. “How do you answer these felony charges, Senator?” “The whole thing was a miscommunication.” “But what about the tapes?” “They took them out of context. They twisted my words.” Nice touch. A person who routinely spends his time bending and torturing the English language telling us that someone has twisted his words. But as the problem gets worse, and his troubles increase, he’s forced to take his explanation in a new direction. He now tells us that “The whole thing has been blown out of proportion.” And by the way, have you noticed with these blown-out-of-proportion people that it’s always “the whole thing”? Apparently, no one has ever claimed that a only a small part of something has been blown out of proportion. But as time passes and the evidence continues to accumulate, our hero suddenly changes direction and begins using public-relations jujitsu. He says, “We’re trying to get to the bottom of this.” We. Suddenly, he’s on the side of the law. “We’re trying to get to the bottom of this, so we can get the facts out to the American people.” Nice. The American people. Always try to throw them in; it makes it sound as if you actually care. As the stakes continue to rise, our hero now makes a subtle shift and says, “I’m willing to trust in the fairness of the American people.” Clearly, he’s trying to tell us something: that there may just be a little fire causing all the smoke. But notice he’s still at the I-have-nothing-to-hide stage. But then, slowly, “I’m willing to trust in the fairness of the American people” progresses to “There is no credible evidence,” and before long, we’re hearing the very telling, “No one has proven a thing.” Now, if things are on track in this drama, and the standard linguistic path of the guilty is being followed faithfully, “No one has proven a thing” will precede the stage when our hero begins to employ that particularly annoying technique: Ask-yourself-questions-and-then-answer-them: “Did I show poor judgment? Yes. Was there inappropriate behavior? Yes. Do I wish this never happened? Of course. But did I break the law? That’s not the issue.” The calendar is marching, however, and it soon becomes clear that our friend is most likely quite guilty, indeed. We know this, because he now shifts into that sublime use of the passive voice: mistakes were made. The beauty of mistakes were made is that it doesn’t really identify who made them. You’re invited to think what you wish. Bad advice? Poor staff work? Voodoo curse? But it’s too late. Mistakes were made quickly becomes eventually I will be exonerated, which then morphs into I have faith in the American judicial system, and the progression ends with that plaintive cry, whatever happened to innocent until proven guilty? Whatever happened to innocent until proven guilty; well, he’s about to find out. Eventually, in full retreat (and federal custody), he shuffles off in his attractive orange jumpsuit, and can be heard muttering that most modern of mea culpas: “I just want to put this thing behind me and get on with my life.” And to emphasize how sincere he is, he announces, “I’m taking responsibility for my actions.” How novel! Imagine; taking responsibility. He says it as though it were a recently developed technique. Whenever I hear that sort of thing on the news, I always want to ask one of these I’m-taking-responsibility-for-my-actions people whether or not they’d be willing to take responsibility for my actions. You know, gambling debts, paternity suits, outstanding warrants. Can you help me out here, pal? Regarding this whole put-this-thing-behind-me idea in general, here’s what I’d like to do. I’d like to put this I-want-to-put-this-thing-behind-me-and-get-on-with-my-life thing behind me and get on with my life. May I repeat that for you? I’d like to put this I-want-to-put-this-thing-behind-me-and-get-on-with-my-life thing behind me and get on with my life. I think one of the problems in this country is that too many people are screwing things up, committing crimes and then getting on with their lives. What is really needed for public officials who shame themselves is ritual suicide. Hara-kiri. Like those Japanese business executives who mismanage corporations into bankruptcy. Never mind the lawyers and the public relations and the press conferences, get that big knife out of the kitchen drawer and do the right thing. - George Carlin, _When Will Jesus Bring The Pork Chops?_
@@francisgutierrez9674, “Irony is wasted on the stupid.” - Oscar Wilde George Carlin is the best comedian to date (Doug Stanhope being the best living one). He had a black belt in the English language: th-cam.com/video/Lk_dRzaBoUM/w-d-xo.html
Sorry, but you missed the most important part of the USA, politics when his friends in high places give him a full pardon!!! No public trial, no one sees his notes, no one reads his ho hos date book of names! Free man, go home and count your money. Don't count your dead!
Love this text. Think it's a must-read for people interested in writing. Influences everything I write for whatever that's worth. Including the songs and poetry. Thanks for covering it!
Oops I think I'm VERY guilty of the second one 😬 (using many words instead of just one) to avoid being repetitive since I don't know that many English words (English is my second language). Also to reach the minimum word count for my assignments lol. However, in my defense, my other reason for doing that is to avoid the forth problem (using words incorrectly to the point that it becomes meaningless or misconstrued). Usually instead of using one word to describe an action, I just describe the action/specify what I mean. This way, I would be less likely to use words incorrectly and I would also avoid mislabeling the action. Whenever I'm describing something, I'm always reminded of that painting of a pipe with some French words written under it that translates to "This is not a pipe" (EDIT: The painting is called "The Treachery of Images" by René Magritte). That made me realize that words are only an approximation of our understanding of whatever information we want to express, so I always try to be as specific as I can with my words. I might be talking too much right now actually so thank you to anyone who read the whole thing. I'll shut up now.
What infuriates me is that my whole life my family was teaching me to speak with precision JUST SO I COULD GO INTO THE WORLD WHERE EVERYONE TWISTS MY WORDS. Most humans take anything others say and filter it through so many emotions, fallacies, biases that the message that enters their brain is corroded and twisted all the way. The meaning gets lost! I got to the point where I don't really understand why should I still try to communicate with others. So now when I insist that we should re-learn to communicate with precision, everyone tells me that I'm naive, it's never gonna happen and society demands that I learn to speak in a way that pleases emotions and makes people feel good. I refuse.
So what you're saying is that you're a loser with no social skills? Look, that's though but I can give you lessons on how to be more charismatic for 100$/hour.
i for one understood what you said perfectly, and i agree with it except that point you made about cranberry jam. strawberry jam is obviously superior!
While I empathise with your position as you've presented it, I do think it's possible for all of this to be said by someone who just can't handle slang or pick up on context/social clues to save their lives.
I've noticed that the more words you use the more "digital" the statement becomes, without masterful usage of the language it's easier to fall into semantic entropy (tangentiality) more often than not, rather than complex and self-referenced synergyc semantic multiplicity: elegant poetry.
I like his mention of Fascism. People throw the word around as a synonym for totalitarianism. When I use it I am referring specifically to authorization corporate capitalism as originally envisioned by Mussolini. Next time I use the term I will have to be more specific. Socialism is another one that gets thrown around. I understand socialism to be worker control of the means of production. But people on the right and left use it to mean stuff done by the government. Bernie Sanders calls himself a socialist. When he would more rightly be termed a social democrat. Democracy is another good one. Authoritarian socialist countries have a habit of calling themselves democratic. The Democratic people's republic of Korea; Democratic Kampuchea; Geman democratic republic. And then you have people saying that the US isn't a democracy it's a republic. Another good term is terrorism. As the saying goes "one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter". Calling a person or group terrorist is a way of painting them as really terrible. Funny enough this term tends to get applied to non state actors. If a non state actor does the dame sort of thing as a state, such as targeting civilians; they are terrorists but the state isn't. Being a state grants a certain level of legitimacy.
Your thoughtful words sparkle like the stars on a clear desert night - delicate points of light that imply great distance and vastness, if you decide to undertake the journey to them.
I just re-read Orwell's essay "My Country - Right or Left" about the dilemmas of supporting a government at a time of crisis with whom you disagree. As to language I would add to Orwell's list Simon Hoggart's maxim that you should check a politician's speech for platitudes (the bleeding obvious in other words) by considering the negation. So for example the Chancellor will say "This government is committed to introducing an efficient and just tax system for the whole country". As opposed to a shambolic and unfair system? The question then is , why are they trying to fill the time with meaningless phrases? What are they not saying?
Jordan Peterson is a good example of poor accuracy when speaking and writing, he will often use complex words and vague phrases to form a sentence that will sound inspirational to a credulous audience
Im glad you brought up how prevalent this problem is within academia as well. Particularely so when students are taught to "muddy the water" to make it seem deep. These students then often end up in high paying corporate jobs/governmental institutions where they are incentivized to keep up this kind of fuzzy communication; either to protect their party/thei own re-election prospects or the good name of their company. I think perhaps the remedy is to try to meet one another and communicate more with the intention of deepening our understanding, instead of playing status games around who has the biggest vocabulary!
Loved this. It's still such a valid take on the English language. Have you heard of content design? It builds on principles that are very similar to the ones Orwell describes.
@@omp199 no. Wow. Comments full of people like you that seem to think words are too fancy. It means good, alright. Having some synonyms is fine, it's not unclear,it's not making the sentence too long,it's fine.
@@gur262 The comments are full of people who claim to have liked the video whilst at the same time showing no sign of having taken in its message. That's the real "wow", here. "Valid" is not a synonym for good. Perhaps English isn't your first language, so here are some of its definitions, copied and pasted from Oxford Languages: 1. (of an argument or point) having a sound basis in logic or fact; reasonable or cogent. 2. legally binding due to having been executed in compliance with the law. 3. legally or officially acceptable. "Good" is not one of them. People on the Internet will often use the word "valid" without thought and without having any real sense of what they are trying to convey with the word. The main message of the video is that you should think about what you mean and to use words that convey the meaning without vagueness or ambiguity.
I think one of the first things we need to do is stop using the word valid in this manner, the amount of times I see people saying something like "sleeping in is valid" on TikTok or Twitter is too much
Please have the great physicist David Deutsch on your podcast. Would be lovely to hear the both of you talk, he too lives in Oxford! His books The Fabric of Reality and The Beginning of Infinity are truly great works.
I love that man. Would be very interesting having them discuss the consciousness of animals as I think Deutsch assumes they aren't (though he doesn't think consciousness is the only morally significant variable).
In addition to using these guidelines when writing, they form a wonderful tool when listening to politicians. The words and structures _some_ of them frequently employ, beautifully highlight their propensity for deniable obfuscation.
As a foreign writer trying to improve my English, this is gold! Thanks a lot for this recommendation. I'm reading it and some of the tips are general and also applied to "writing well" in other languages, but some of them are very specific to English and it would probably take years before I could learn them spontaneously. Thanks again!
Writing like this is a huge deal in the sciences as well, and it has to do with a crisis of academia. A crisis where researchers are pressured to publish as much as possible as often as possible to stay relevant which results in researchers using language that obscures their points so it's harder to pin down, therefore harder to refute. There's a free Coursera course called "Writing in the Sciences" where Dr. Kristina Sainani points out some of the things you've illustrated here. Cheers!
9:35 I never thought of a foot race with "toe the line." It always made me think of a group of people with a common cause (politicians, usually) all standing behind the party line (i.e. their policies/beliefs etc), some of them with their toes on but not over the line. If someone breaks ranks and steps over the line, they're obviously not toeing the line anymore and the party needs to decide if and how to punish them.
It always made me think of someone being made to walk a straight line by the police, on suspicion of drunk driving, when you really have to watch your step.
I agree with most of Orwell's (or Blair's) points in his essay except the presumption that politicians should want to be more clear. That is precisely what modern politicians strive to avoid. All modern politicians want to be as ambiguous and vague as possible so that they can avoid being pinned down to a certain view - one of the reasons why I hate politicians.
I hate them too. Politicians should be bitchslapped until they make their position so clear that there is literally no backing out anymore, and then they get bitchslapped for their stupid position.
This is why I liked Trump(not American btw, but nevertheless). You knew his stance on issues presented to him as clear as crystal. He wanted other countries to pay for things like America did, and so he said without sugarcoating such a controversial idea. Maybe it's because the media doesn't extensively cover Biden, or maybe it's because he is not clear at conveying his decisions like Trump, I have no idea what his stance is, on topics like the Russian invasion.
@@sudind LOL, you don't know where Biden stands on Russian invasion of Ukraine? He said that Russia is committing war crimes! Do you know where Trump stands on Russian invasion of Ukraine? He first said that Putin is a smart man and a good leader. Even a few days ago, he couldn't say that what Putin is doing is evil. BTW, saying you liked Trump because you know where he stands on issues is like saying you like a racist because you know where he stands. Maybe you should know where he stands before deciding whether you like or dislike someone?
@@raymondlee546 Yeah, I don't like him but it doesn't mean I don't dislike Biden's kkk corpse at least as much. I'd take bullshit libertarian capitalism over the authoritarian NWO at this point. But they all should be removed all the same, all the globalist lizard bitches regardless of what controlled resistance they pretend to be. They're all the same.
@@raymondlee546 i really don't care about America's internal issues. He took his troops out of Afghanistan. Thats what I liked: his bluntness. He believed America should meddle less in the affairs of other countries, and he acted on that belief. He said countries like Germany should pay more for NATO, because they could afford to, but still didn't. And he said that straightforward. He believed Germany was too heavily reliant on Russian gas and should step away from Putin, and he said the same thing clear as daylight. Biden meanwhile introduces things like the "Green Deal" so just when I'm assuming the oil corporations will have a hard time, the oil production is higher than ever. Fracking is still allowed, for what reason? What positive thing has the "Green Deal" done? What about it is so green?
The other day a friend said that Russia was invading Ukraine to free it from Fascism. I was so perplexed. Wtf do they mean by Fascism? I started Googling. Turns out Orwell already realized the word had no meaning except for bad to that person saying it. This was excellent Alex!
Ukraine unironically has a neonazi presence in its military, but I completely agree. Fascism means nothing but an accusation of something that can no longer be described. Same thing for socialism in my opinion; the definition of the word socialism has changed over the years and is now considered to be a synonym for communism or "when the government owns everything". Political actors love to change the definition of words if it benefits them.
@@gusleybighusley6062 I understand the whole point is that words like socialism have lost their meaning. But I don't know anyone who claims socialism is when the government owns everything. That goes against the often repeated socialist ideas that workers should own the means of production, etc.
@@gusleybighusley6062 Socialism has meaning because a number of people are socialist and identify as such, along with the fact that Marx and Engles laid out plain definitions for both socialism and communism in their works. While many people use it wrong, there are always a number of people using it correctly and there are only a few valid and widely used definitions Fascism, in contrast, has never been defined by the original fascists and only can be described by the academics that have researched it. The fact that academics don't agree or give a clear definition of fascism and the fact that fascists perpetrated one of the worst events people remember are why fascism no longer has meaning.
It is wrong to say fascism, "has no meaning". Anything distinctly identifiable deserves its own word. Otherwise we are using words applied elsewhere for different meanings. What is fascism? Hierarchic nationalism driven by radical conservatism in cooperation with private interests. What else would such a phenomenon possibly be called? There is no other singular word available. Dictatorship? No, because dictatorship can be in-place with private economic cooperation AND without it. Oligarchy? No, because an oligarchy doesn't have to be radically conservative. Can we just say "radical conservatism"? No, because these cooperative and nationalist elements aren't necessarily sought nor readily identified.
I spent all day yesterday and today dying over how boring writing an essay was. And now... here I am, before bed, watching a video on the same subject. But apparently my brain thought this would be "fun." Worst part is that I suck at English lmao
I feel like schadenfreude is one of those foreign words that needs to be used in certain situations. It's unclear if the audience doesn't understand it, but once they do it's the only word capable of describing that feeling
Not translating some words from German, just because it is a compound word, is just laziness or not understanding the concept enough. Schadenfreude stems out of two words, just as much as malicious joy, an excellent translation, does.
@@PhysiKarlz No, I understand the concept and understand the compound translations. Assuming it's laziness on my behalf is pretty arrogant. If I said "I experienced malicious joy when he lost his job" to someone in English they would ask what the fuck I'm talking about. If I say "I experienced schadenfreude when he lost his job" to someone who understands the word it would sound better. My point is that schadenfreude has become a popular foreign word in the English world recently that using it in place of something like "malicious joy" communicates the emotion better.
@@RogueAstro85 You enjoy the loss or harm experienced by someone else. Malicious joy. It sounds like you prefer the other word just because it doesn't sound malicious, when it still is! I speak the language of German every single day by the way.
I love that you're bringing attention to Orwell, I really do It's a really good video, don't get me wrong! But I find it a little ironic that the summary of Orwell's writing takes longer than it would to actually read it.
8:00 wow, in Dutch, we actually use the word 'brand' for a 'fire' (not like a campfire, which would be 'kampvuur', but you would use it talking about a house or forest on fire). Never new it had something to do with fire in English aswell.
Critiques of Judith Butler’s writing style quickly become tiresome. In works such as _Gender Trouble_ and _Bodies That Matter,_ Butler carefully adopts a style reflecting their subject and point, particularly with regard to subjectification and the formation of the subject. While not necessarily one’s cup of tea, the move is perfectly reasonable and instructive. It should not be considered objectively improper.
Fascinating piece and some consideration of these rules, whether you adopt them all or not, will improve your writing. Interestingly, he is ok with dead metaphors but not dying metaphors. How do they die if not beaten like a dead horse? :) And, how do we distinguish between a dying one and a dead one?
"Never use a metaphor, simile, or other figure of speech which you are used to seeing in print." Essentially, the definition of dead/dying depends on the individual and their own encounters with each phrase, but the best way Orwell found to make that distinction was by using what you see regularly in print as 'dying' and those you'd find in more archaic works or spoken by older generations as 'dead'. I think the reason its far more acceptable to use a dead metaphor is because you can resurrect its meaning, or morph it to fit a new situation with new imagery far easier than a phrase that is dying. Like how your parents' vernacular makes more sense than when they try to be hip and use(butcher) the new slang, if that makes sense.
when figuratively literally got added as an alternate meaning of literally. In my communication course, brevity was the goal, clarity was a must, and length got points deducted. Orwell would be proud.
I think you're mixing things up a good bit here, lumping both complex academic language that needs that complexity to be as short as it is, like with that quote from Butler, and complex language that is needlessly verbose to confuse, hide, and obfuscate. One of those things is necessary for the relative brevity it enables. The other is not.
Loved this video. I also don't agree with everything he says, I like a bit of linguistic indulgence as you say, but his points are important to consider.
I doubt very much that Orwell would ever have used the ubiquitous, stuttering "for free" (aka "for nothing"), let alone "oftentimes" (the bloated US version of "often"), nor do I think he'd ever have confused "less" with "fewer", or mispronounced "swathes" (long A) to rhyme with "moths" like you did... Nitpicky points I know, but they rather blunted the impact of an otherwise excellent talk about a great writer who prized accuracy and clarity!
I'm currently following a class, my exam being in 2 days, and I need to read around 140 pages worth of articles that are filled with words that Orwell would scream at. There's like one important thing on every page that could just as well be written in 1 sentence. It gives me such a headache and it's so unnecessary.
I described myself as "training wheels on a tricycle" once when presenting a seminar on a paper written by a professor in attendance at the seminar, which the audience seemed to enjoy. I'd like to see the legal profession adopt some of these recommendations, particularly in the realm of contractual drafting.
This might have been addressed in the sub-thread on jargon, but I lost track of it and don't feel like scrolling through 1600-odd posts looking for it. Like most jargon, the intent of legalese is to be as precise and unambiguous as possible, within its own context. It runs into the problem of assigning different meanings to words in common usage. It's also easily subject to misuse taking advantage of those ambiguities (see "lies, damned lies, and statistics"), and because of the connection between law and politics we end up with exactly what Orwell was complaining about. Looking back on what I just wrote, I think I could be accused of violating at least one of Orwell's guidelines. Que sera, sera. ;)
I also hate the way people speak. When someone uses the term "Orwellian" or say something is "like 1984" I get irrationally upset. Both American political parties say that everything the other party does is Orwellian, even if it is, in fact, not Orwellian. It is such a washed out and overused term that it has basically no meaning. If someone is said to have done something Orwellian, you would have no clue what was actually done, because the term has just changed into being something that the speaker disagrees with. The misuse of the word Orwellian is honestly quite Orwellian.
What if just about everything both those parties do is in fact Orwellian and you can only understand it by understanding the nature of the left vs right mind control the elite are using?
"Orwellian" should be somehow kept to mean what it really means, the point of 1984: wielding contradictions to gaslight people until they abandon their own will and replace it with blind loyalty.
@@gekkobear1650 It is Orwellian, but it has taken one further step beyond what Orwell described: instead of speaking in contradictions, the left/right has mastered using one word with contradictory meanings.
I once had a course at university where in the title it said something like good communication or something, and when I read the course description I had no idea what it said. It was quite the meme in my group of friends ^^
Great video! Only your description of Butlers endless sentence as "meaningless verbiage" bothered me as being over the top (where did this metaphor actually came from? Archery?). It certainly was awfully written and a verbiage, but not meaningless. In fact I understood every word of it and I'm not even a native english speaker. So to me, knowing the jargon she was using, it actually was "very insightful". But surely the writing was overly complicated and someone should tell her to put a period every once in a while. But to be fair: A lot of philosophers do this. Think of Kant, Hegel etc. Doesn't make it better though :)
A number of years ago, I wrote a book review of a book about education for an education journal. I wrote it in clear, direct English. The editor said it was too simple, and I should remember that I was writing for highly literate professors. So I Frenchified it and Latinated it; he wrote back to say it was too ornate, that professors were busy people who needed something more direct. In my third version, I returned to the original but sprinkled in a few words of French and Latin origin to assuage the editor's sensibilities. He published it at last. I doubt he ever read Orwell.
Wow!
Sounds like a similar thing to the sokal affair
The academic world really does like to huff its own farts sometimes, huh? It sucks you had to fuck around to find the editor's Goldilocks zone of "ornate".
Just reply with ye' olde', "If you cannot explain it to a six year old, you do not understand it yourself."
It is painfully true. Anyone who says otherwise is Dunning Kruger incarnate.
@@ashkebora7262 - That's the most truthful statement I've read in months here on TH-cam -
And it almost goes without saying that those who make reference to Dunning Kruger are the best examples of it themselves - not including you. One politician who exhibits such in spades is Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. The crown jewel of DKE -
"If you're wondering why I've driven 30 minutes..."
I doubt any American viewer was wondering this
Yes, here 30min is like a below average commute time in a city
Yeah but they you have to live in nyc.
American: "If you're wondering why I've driven 30 minutes... it's because I had to go to work today."
I remember when gas was cheap. I would take drives in the country that would last longer than that. At 6 a gallon, I stay at work and sleep in the parking lot.
@@stop.juststop Where are you paying $6/gallon?
I remember running into the issue of "meaningless words" in my high school philosophy classes. Our teacher would ask us to define terms like justice or fairness when using them in discussions, and we discovered that we were debating things that had different meanings to some of us. It was a good exercise, because we then ran into unavoidable ambiguities, which are the core of disagreements.
Ambiguity is the core of *some* disagreements. Others are genuine differences about the goals.
@@jursamaj Yes, and it´s more productive to establish the latter, but often we waste time on ambiguous concept instead. Speaking/writing past eachother because of definitions
Darn I wish my high school offered philosophy classes.
@@juicebox9465 I didn't know some high schools did
Since it was a intro philosophy course, I am certain that the point wasn't meaningless words, but an intro to Platonic Forms and Socratic Dialogue. They become meaningless words when thrown out there as thought stoppers and declarations. But the Platonic view is that there are some concepts that are in fact universal, but are so ineffable that we only have access to distortions and life is about becoming increasingly aware of the truth of the concept.
This reminds me of the way Jordan Peterson talks.
The fact that Orwell felt this way about our language comes as somewhat of a relief to me. I was a creative writing major in college, because I love writing and I want to be an author. I'd been writing my whole life by then, but oh boy, was I unprepared for what I had signed up for.
The way my professors expected me to write was not at all how I wanted to write. Basically, they wanted me to write pretensiously, using language that was unclear and almost intentionally meant to befuddle the reader. Whenever I would point out that there was a better way to phrase something to make it simpler and less confusing, they would come at me with, "Well, do you WANT your writing to be simple? Don't you want to make your readers think?"
I knew they were never going to accept that there is value in writing "simplistic, nonliterary fiction." I picked my degree up from the bursars office and left with the empty feeling that I'd wasted my time entirely. I guess what I'm trying to say is that I felt alone in school, because it seemed to me that no one else could see what I saw.
Anyway, thank you for this video. Brilliant, as always.
Sounds like your kind is waiting for you on the Archive of Our Own! (I hope you already knew of AO3 before today.)
Also if someone like Chuck Tingle can find success in the INCREDIBLY NICHE spot he's chosen to write in and sound "simplistic" (and provoke thought ANYWAY and despite how absurd it keeps starting off-- seriously I didn't think I'd have so much to ponder from a story about an emo aromantic dinosaur biker at a magical school)?
You can DEFINITELY find a spot too.
(Also that degree sounds like you got a rather expensive course on what not to do, which IS technically not a waste of time-- now you know how to write pretentiously, without clarity and with intent to confuse, so you also know how to write the opposite-- and also know how to write a villain who's deliberately using that kind of language to sway the masses and obfuscate his true goals!
See, it's not completely wasted! Everything is food to the writer!
It's ironic that jordan peterson book was the first that came to my mind too , it was the first book i felt jaded with every chapter i read , or maybe it is because simplicity is my preference, some people see the beauty of it , but most just feel smarter reading simple points made way more complex and ambiguous
Yeah point #4 especially reminded me of him. He thrives on that kind of ambiguity.
I want to make them think about the things I wrote, not wonder what I wrote. ...or something to that effect, English ain't my first language. ...so these profs thought making sentences riddles was good?
Don't be down, because you are actually right. I had a similar feeling when I picked up my degree. Many of my peers were hurahhing and celebrating the fact that they were now officially smart. I, by contrast, although I'd done well enough, felt stupider than I had before I enrolled. My three years of study had just served to compound in me how little I knew.
Write your way, not theirs. It's better that your work should eminate humility than pretenciousness. Oh, and another feeling I had that day, more of an insight really, was how dumb many of my professors were--like big kids who had never really left school and lived in the outside world. How can you write about a world you have never lived in? Not even Shakespeare could have done that.
I first read this essay around 6 years ago. It was my favorite thing I read in all of high school, and pretty much the only thing I remember from my English classes. Ironically, those English classes still had bloated wordcount requirements that were extremely hard to reach without writing terribly.
I don't think this applies much to politics today. He seems to be describing postmodernism more than modern politics. Modern politicians make an effort to speak more like the "common man" (ie more clearly). They obfuscate, of course, but in a different way to the one Orwell is describing.
I hate both minimum and maximum word counts. I'm currently writing an essay on Mechanics and there is a minimum word count of 1300. With the material we were provided from the school lessons alone I can't even fully explain the concepts in only 1300 words let alone material from other sources which teachers often like you to cite in essays. I consider myself to be a concise writer too.
The fact that the word "Orwellian" has become a meaningless word is so Blairistic
Woah you sent me down a really interesting rabbit hole regarding British politics, market driven reforms, Cuba in the 90's and a whole bunch of other interesting shit with one short but clever remark. Thanks!
Orwellian isn't meaningless. It's used as a retort against the condemnation of dehumanizing attutudes... an ideology of "how dare you complain to us about the terms we use against you?"
It's become useless as a term for most people because of the fact that it's been claimed by prescriptivists and RWAs, but it is by no means meaningless.
It could certainly be said that -were we to suppose the kinds of linguistic mannerisms that we might not have expected the school of 'Orwellian thought' to much disagree with, in the veritable likeness of one becoming one's own worst enemy, the seldom specific means by which that aforementioned phrasing is not _rarement mentionné_ wouldn't perhaps be unreasonable to describe by way of its own intended meaning.
Doesn't the use of "Baliristic" make your comment less Orwellian?
That's a truly beautiful statement.
George Carlin had a bit on "useless language" where he discussed filler words and meaningless jargon that cloud todays political and social discourse. Truly brilliant
Are you talking about the euphemism part ?
"George Carlin [...] truly brilliant." There. Summed up all Carlin discourse accurately.
Ah yes, the famous bit where he alledges that "People in need of special assistance" means "cripples", even though it includes the elderly, children, post-surgery patients, people with mental or developmental disabilities and more, says we should call PTSD "shell shock" even though it can have a variety of non-combat related causes, and says that toilet paper is now called "bathroom tissue", even though it's clearly not.
I love Carlin as much as the next guy, but sometimes, he was just wrong.
@@alljedimustdie2839 he was a comedian. jokes aren't perfect water-tight academic papers. his way of thinking was outside of the box at the time and sorely lacking in american pop culture which is why he's so revered. but you're right, he was wrong sometimes.
"People dont die, they pass awaay"
I can't say I agree with his views on double negatives. For example, "I can't say I agree" seems a bit more sympathetic to the position than saying "I disagree", or ,"not uncommon" sounds slightly rarer than saying "common". The english language isn't like maths, a double negative isn't exactly the same as a positive, and can be the more precise way of conveying what you want to say.
I felt the same. Often, pairs of words like common/uncommon have a more complex relationship than perfect opposites - for example, something can be neither common nor uncommon. This means that, as you say, the double “negative” doesn’t work as expected. Also, I forget the exact term (anchoring maybe?), but I think that sometimes an element of psychology could be involved in the way we interpret such statements (even with perfect opposite pairs) where we are predisposed to expect a more negative or positive meaning to the phrase whether we read “not” first.
It's softening the blow, which is, technically speaking, emotional manipulation, right? Your INTENT is to be kind, but the end result is still wording it so they don't get upset/angry at you for disagreeing.
@@neoqwerty To me, being sympathetic to a position means "I can understand your reasons and why someone might be persuaded by them, but I personally am not", and that's the tone of the response I would be aiming for if I were using the phrase, "I can't say I agree". I guess if someone wanted to be controlling in a very subtle way, this is something they could use, but imo you'd need to be a master of communication for it to work, so in some rare situations, I agree with you. When I hear it being used, it makes me think that they are on a similar wavelength to me, are listening to my arguments, and think I am somewhat reasonable, but just have a different point of view. It also just seems friendlier
@@faresBtoush1990 You only read what you wanted to read in all of that. In your view, being accurate about what you think is 'political positioning' - meaning we'd all be taking black or white positions under your logic. No nuance can exist if you think nothing but "yes" and "no" can exist. You've completely misunderstood the video, good job.
@@henryginn7490
Well couldn't you just say the former? I know it's more wordy but isn't it more precise? Would everyone interpret "I can't say I agree" to have such a sentiment, even when applying the "correct tone"? Personally I'd still expect an explanation if this were part of a true dialogue about something.
That's one of the things that marks a great writer: Understanding and acceptance that language is not static and needs to adapt to change, as opposed to just whinging about new slang terms or emojis existing or whatever the current complaint is.
"language is not static and needs to adapt to change, as opposed to just..."
That's true enough but the other extreme to avoid is just accepting any change whatsoever. There are so many ways in English to emphasize and exaggerate language already and too many people are trying to drag 'literally' into that sphere. It's one of only two words that denote _literal language_ (the other being 'actually') and these idiots want to weaken and muddy the language by not only eliminating one of those few options but even swapping it to a nearly opposite meaning.
New language is pretty binary; it either useful or it isn't. The useless examples, such as pure nonsense like 'irregardless', should absolutely be expunged and corrected when encountered.
Using 'prescriptivism' as a pejorative is just completely asinine.
Like that webcomic. “Look, new slang is gonna keep happening and you’re gonna have to keep learning what it means. If you put your foot down and stop, that’s the moment you become old.”
I just finished reading Animal Farm and even when using symbolisms, Orwell doesn’t leave much room for interpretation. It never comes as pretentious, it’s a simple yet effective tale.
I came across this comment today, and I'm halfway through Animal Farm. Just wanted to add that when it comes to fiction, these rules shouldn't apply. As you say he is very direct in that book, which is one of the reasons I'm finding it kind of boring to read. In my opinion, fiction SHOULD be (or maybe not should, but have the option to be) more vague and poetic to make the reader play with their fantasy, that's atleast the type of writings I enjoy to read more than getting plain information straight on
@@mikemodano863 Fair enough! But I would like to think that rules and "shoulds" are exempt from the creative world. I would also argue that he doesn't give plain information straight on as you suggested; after all, he does use symbolism and metaphors to present his message so I wouldn't call his writing as giving the readers straight information.
On a side note, have you read 1984? The message is still evident, but it's a damn good book (in my opinion)
@@Andrea-movies Yeah that's why I corrected myself with the "should".
Yes I did read 1984, and I agree that it was good, but it was also very different from Animal Farm, just took it as an example just because it IS pretty straight forward (to me atleast), even if there is symbolism it is too obvious that it becomes a bit corny, but then again it's a fable and somewhat of a satire so it fulfills its purpose I suppose
@@mikemodano863 Good art is the one that the author liked, because it means other people can find it pleasant as well. You can just read how 1984 is written, how direct the message is and how grim and political everything feels, and that's how he felt about it, I like the book because of that same reason, it speaks like urgency, like no matter the year, the reader can feel warned about the world. He could've written books in a more poetic way, using more vague imagery, but that's dishonest, that's something other writer should do (Brave new world is a more poetic book in that regard)
Too bad it’s an absolute train wreck in terms of history and people take it seriously
Bertrand Russell was an extremely clear writer, especially for a philosopher. It was said to me once that if you still struggle with the concepts of philosophy after reading Russell, then it’s the philosophy that’s difficult. Russell also wrote a short essay about writing titled ‘How I Write’ in which he gave similar advice to Orwell.
The Elements of Style by William Strunk Jr. and E.B. White gives advice on how to keep writing clear and simple. Originally composed in 1918 and later updated in 1959, it is a book that has stood the test of time and highly recommended.
Great video as usual. Really enjoyed it.
He gave advice to Orwell?
Strunk and White are definitely not a good source. There are very many issues with their advice, and they don't follow it particularly eagerly themselves in their writing.
Re: Strunk and White, let's consider this bit: "Different than. Here logic supports established usage:
one thing differs from another, hence, different from. Or,
other than, unlike."
No, that's not how logic works. Nearly any time they claimed logic was on their side, they had a rather peculiar sense of how logic works.
Or maybe people can write their own way instead of following rules by pompous intellectuals.
I remember that book (elements of style); thanks for the trip down memory lane. I'm glad I learned fundamentals of english syntax and composition in high school. You need to know the rules before you can break them and even then only with intention. My teacher would always say "a walk through the forest is that much more interesting if you're able to name the trees".
"On Writing" had some helpful tips as well for those who want to write. I recall importance of phrase "edit, edit, edit", which amongst many other things is when you're able to remove unnecessary words. This is akin to trimming the bushes so as to better see the roses.
This makes so much sense! I finished 1984 yesterday (i love these coincidances of life) and i actually decided to read it in English, even though it's not my native language. And i was shocked by how easy the language was. I could read the book quite quickly and wasn't overwhelmed by the language at all. I loved it.
And when it comes to humanities - I agree with Orwell 100%. I studied art history for 5 years and it is still impossible to me to read some scholars that are important to ar thistory, but just sound so complicated, that they make me feel very stupid, because I simply don't know what they are trying to say.
I had the same experience reading 1984. It was like the story was playing as a film in my mind.
Edit: (English is my first language and I still find a lot of English conversation and writing to be confusing and uninspired. I noticed this same issue when I was learning Spanish. The author or speaker makes a huge difference).
D
It's a kid's book that they teach to middle schoolers of course it's easy to read
@@barockobummer2448 You seem like a dick who (incorrectly) believes they are superior. Why are you degrading a book that not only had a legend behind it, but someone who was socialist, a political philosophy Lenin (your current pfp) would actually be sympathetic of but not fully supported its lack of zeal or actual realistic applicable methods. The rich don't give up ground to be fair, just look at history, or even Ukraine and Russias petty and childish border war. How naive of humanity.
@@barockobummer2448 Well, it wasn't written as a kids book. Animal Farm was more in that direction, but not 1984.
11:30 - I think Orwell may be closer to your position than this essay suggests. In a letter to Henry Miller, responding to people who criticised Joseph Conrad for his “florid style”, he wrote that “… if your motto is to ‘Cut out the adjectives’, why not go a bit further and revert to a system of grunts and squeals, like the animals?”
He seems to acknowledge that good writing doesn’t have to be completely stripped-down and minimalistic, as long as the floridity is not meaningless, pretentious or misleading.
Great video, really enjoyed this.
I think it’s pretty obvious that there’s a sweet spot. Orwell’s own invention to characterise authoritarian hell is ‘Newspeak’ and that is incredibly utilitarian. His position on writing still called for strong imagery, so it’s obvious that he stands only against “over-complication” and not just any degree of complexity whatsoever
I feel that there needs to be a distinction made between factual/non-fiction and fiction here. Fiction can afford to be slightly less precise since it aims to communicate things more artistically ( also it bears mentioning that some of Conrad’s work like Heat of Darkness literally explores the idea of perspective and objectivity).
@@BD-yl5mh Orwell and the idea of complex vs simple in language is yet another example of Aristotle’s Golden Mean in action.
@@BD-yl5mh Doubleplusgood response!
Joseph conrad always gives me chills, there can be an accounting for tastes too. And sometimes we rationalize our tastes into our understanding and world view. Lots of pointless disagreements start like this ime
Your timing is perfect Alex! 16 of march I got elected as councillor for a city in The Netherlands for the Party for the Animals. Your video convinced me to try to use simple words as much as I can, and think of creative metaphors. Thanks.
Veel succes! Make the world a better place my friend! From Australia
Here in Australia I am a member of Animal Justice Party 🥳 . We stand for the animals, people and planet.
@@dianedevery3711 Awesome! 🙂✊
*press x to doubt*
@@ginge641 Nah it's real. Search up his name and party together
This is great advice for programmers too. I'm a game developer and the most frustrating code to deal with is typically bloated and imprecise. It takes longer to read and understand, it's harder to test, it's more likely to have bugs and it's orders of magnitude less performant. The parallels are striking.
Exactly. We don't write code for machines. We write code for other coders. Unless you are typing out 1s and 0s. I often tell my junior developers to start with plain English. Understand the problem, describe it clearly, then codify it. The worst thing I see daily are paragraphs of gibberish in a comment above a routine that shouldn't need an explanation.
It’s crazy that completely by chance I read this essay 2 days ago in a version of Orwell’s ‘Why I Write’. Alex’s analysis helps drive the important points home for sure.
I read that essay a few days ago too and the video is a pleasant surprise
Big Brother Alex is watching.
There must be a bug going around.
Orwell disapproves this message.
My professor went over Orwell's main thoughts in class a few days before this video! It seems Alex is always watching us!
@@whitedog510 Interestingly, you are probably right. It's unlikely, this video was recommended to him by chance. Rather because he may have googled certain things regarding orwell. This got then fed to google's algorithms and thus the video showed up his recommendations. Brilliant, really... spooky, too.
Jordan Peterson needs to read this essay.
I was searching for this comment
The irony of him telling people to be precise in their speech lol
I'm pretty sure he read it
But what do you mean by “read”? I think that depends on your definition of reading. To read is to understand but Jordan Peterson already understands that he speaks perfectly and precisely so therefore he has already read everything.
Or be symbolically disemboweled while holding Kyle Rittenhouse's incel naziboy hand.
This is such a fascinating subject! Especially when you compare how these "guidelines" apply in different languages. As someone from the Netherlands, my generation has often been accused of ruining the Dutch language by Anglifying our speech. In return, we see linguistic protectionism to an almost ridiculous extent. This can lead to confusion in (for example) conversations about technology because the Dutch equivalent is not the colloquial term. The foreign one is.
Interesting. Could you please give an example?
@@GregVidua First thing that came to mind for me is my Dutch teacher insisting we wrote 'kredietkaart' instead of creditcard. To this day I have never heard someone use the Dutch word for it, either written or spoken.
Another example is the French using the word ‘ordinateur’ instead of ‘computer’. Or ‘SIDA’ instead of ‘AIDS’. While most of Europe uses the English word / abbreviation.
@@LevelJoy thanks! As long as you protect fiets, bakfiets, pindakaas and handschoenen you'll be fine 😉
@@GregVidua Nobody better mess with fiets. Niet op mijn horloge.
@@GregVidua handshoenen? Im not from the Netherlands but from Sweden and this word sounds like “hand shoes” to me. Is it the Dutch word for “gloves” because, if so, … sneaky!
One thing that I think is missing from analyses such as Orwell's is the aesthetic or emotional aspect of language. I've seen this a lot in higher education, where universities such as Harvard use Latin for mottos. Sometimes the priority in speaking is not to provide clarity, but rather to evoke a certain emotion. An example of "younger generations corrupting the English Language" is the popular phrase "you're not wrong." This is often used when someone makes a statement, often at the expense of the person responding. It literally means "you're right," but the double negative gives the impression that while the speaker is willing to admit that the other person is not incorrect, they are not willing to admit that they are right. Similarly, I might say "it's common to see someone say this," but "it's not uncommon" "feels" slightly different, in the way that "the glass is half full" and "the glass is half empty" mean the same thing as "there is a half-glass of [liquid], but each phrase evokes a different emotion.
I hate "the glass is half full" because whenever I hear it, I think "was it once full and you drank half, then it's half empty, but if you only filled it half way then it's half full" it's still a shit metaphor.
The glass is at 50% capacity.
your comment is so on point!
@@Enoch-Root Found the engineer. As for me: Excuse me? EXCUSE me! Is this my glass? I don't think so. MY glass was full. AND it was a bigger glass!
@@Enoch-Root the glass isn't using 50% of it's capacity.
Orwell is just exposing the problems with modern schooling. As someone who loves dissambiguity, I do really appreciate Orwell's ideas, and your video on them
When I was in art school, I learned the rules of design. My teachers impressed on me that these were tools not fetters. These rules are the same. They can help you identify weaknesses in your own expression and writing and can provide a guide if you get into trouble or something just doesn't feel right but you should not anguish over applying the rules, especially in the first draft. Use the rules to identify the cliff edge and then decide yourself if you want to jump off.
Based on the title and introduction, I thought you were going to lament modern informal and colloquial language (eg on social media). I’m glad to see this was much more intelligent and thoughtful than that alternative
I agree with part of this and disagree with other parts.
For instance, I know it's fun to rib politicians about their use of the passive voice but often times these politicians aren't directly responsible for the actions/mistakes of their departments etc. So, "mistakes were made" is actually more accurate than "I made a mistake." It is also unhelpful in those cases to name all the people (inside the various departments etc) who have contributed to the specific mistake in question.
Furthermore, the use of passive voice and double-negatives and such gives a subtlety to thought that is lost in the direct/active speech. Saying "I agree with you" carries a different tone/connotation to saying "I don't disagree with you": the latter implies that there is more to the story.
Now, obviously these things can be overused intentionally (and maliciously) to obfuscate the main point: and we should avoid and condemn this wherever possible. But, often times the beauty of language lies in its elasticity and the way it can be kneaded and stretched to convey the same point differently.
Well stated.
How's that for concise?
👍🏻
I agree that double negatives have genuinely different meanings than no-negatives. Especially for words that are on abscale, and not binary. "It's not uncommon" means "it doesn't happen below ~10% of the time", or "it happens a least ~10% of the time", while "it's common" means "it happens at least 30-50% of the time"
There's "it's common" (>50%), "it's not common" (10%) and "it's uncommon" (
this is why i always hated word limits when doing school assignments. i had to deliberately use meaningless words just to try and reach it, when my shorter version summarized all of my arguments very clearly.
Maybe Orwell could have done with a few more words and maybe his work would’ve had some depth
@@VONYX8 BOOOOOM!!!! Eat DIRT ORWELL!!!!
What are you talking about lmao
I love how "false verbal limbs" is the perfect example of using creative metaphor to communicate
Politicians literally cannot give a "straight answer", the entire system is set up in a way to disincentivize giving direct answers. It's bad obviously, the ideal is people saying what they think, but the system has to change first.
exactly. one could even say that it is the very job of a politician under the current system to not give straight answers.
I can't speak for all nations, but in the US Bernie Sanders proved you can have success in many ways using active speech with clear words. Of course, Bernie didn't win his election, but that is because of many factors some out of his control and some in his control. However, I would say that his active and clear speech lead to his massive popularity and notoriety in politics.
@@Ghettofinger As someone from South Africa I can confirm it exists here in a slightly worse form. Here we have the case where they try this same linguistic gymnastics but English isn't their first language so its still gymnastics but you can tell they've not exercised a day in their lives.
Our dutch PM Rutte Global liberal is lying all the time behind his noncense phrases.
It is tiring for us but deliberately done.
And no one is interested in politics or ( forbidden) debate.
They give us footbal and beer instead......
In Canada, parliament holds a weekly session called "question period" in which any member of parliament (but typically from the opposition) can ask questions of other MPs (typically from the government side. It is well named because questions are certainly asked. Of course, it is not called "answer period" for somewhat obvious reasons.
But it is not just that the responses do not address the question but that the questions are loaded.
I'd like to see more content like that from a broader area of academics. I really enjoy your videos on veganism and atheism but a mix with that kind of topics could be even better.
Atheism is bullshit. Its the same as saying I dont believe in my eye because i have never seen it. Reflections do not count because then every majesty of nature is a reflection of God
@@Legenddeadman4ever Cha cha real smooth. While I appreciate the directness and lack of pretense and of course not using a dead of dying metaphor. I do think here a little word dressing could do some good? Maybe a little eyeliner or some bangs to hide the snuck premises better? Just some suggestions
@@Legenddeadman4ever this has to be the most hollow strawman of strawiest strawman of strawman I have ever heard, when a 9 year old Christian gets mad jesus is not son of god kekW.
@@Legenddeadman4ever false comparison, you pretentious indoctrinated drone.
@@Legenddeadman4ever I have seen my eye. I've got a mirror. Goddamn you are a proper fool.
Excellent video. Regarding dying metaphors, I feel that for a non-native English speaker like me, it can be harder to identify those. We constantly keep learning new phrases and idioms, and they don't usually come in the order of their age.
Very much agreed! I was thoroughly surprised, when Cosmic said, that he thought "rule of thumb" and "skating on thin ice" are dying metaphors. Because to me, they aren't at all. I think something like "Banging the drums of war" is a better fit for a "dying metaphor" and generally the idioms that don't really apply in todays world. People are still skating - including on thin ice. No one is actually banging drums while marching to war...
Another is “turning swords to ploughshares” which means to convert wartime resources into peacetime resources or to actively push for peace. But very few people farm and very few people subsistence farm, so ploughshares are not common anymore.
@@iantaakalla8180 swords aren't a viable means of warfare either
Great opinion! We will take it into consideration.
Thanks, Roe :)
I found myself imagining speaking with Orwell:
"I must say sir, you are an excellent interlocutor that I, and indeed all of us, must hold in the highest esteem of our modern intellectual cannon... Oh, don't look at me like that George, I'm just trying to get your goat."
His personal name was Eric Blair.
The great thing about English not being my first language is that my speech is direct and to the point 😂 I can’t indulge my speech with petulant words and dying metaphors, I already have to translate everything to English before speaking, and that’s tough enough.
"I can't indulge my speech with petulant words."
But you can indulge it with words like 'petulant'?
Did you get this through Google Translate? This is quite polished English to me and not rly "to the point" as I'd expect.
The best trick you can ever use when learning a new language is to stop translating things in your head. Shortcircuit that by attempting to position yourself in a state of thought and perception that is raw, not through the lens of something you know.
Just like a child learns their first language. Raw input to raw perception.
The languages will live separately in your head and you'll be faster using the second one.
@@empyrionin I wish I could do that, but whenever I can't find the word in English, my mind goes into survival mode and starts frantically searching for the word within the other languages I speak. I am like a multilingual child😆
@@grabble7605
Your contribution might be an affront and less than pleasant to Andrea Cumunel, notwithstanding the aforementioned contributor's selectivity in word placement and syntax portrayed an erudite mastery in a language they were, by their admission, not accustomed to.
This video clearly had a great impact on me, since the night after watching it, I dreamt. I don’t remember much about the dream, but in it, the expression “bad as a boardroom door” came to me. I have no idea what it means, but feel free to use this extremely fresh metaphor in any way you like.
I'm going to steal it and apply it to the next time my tabletop group is in Tomb of Horrors levels of deep shit. "This situation looks bleak... Indeed, it's as bad as boardroom door."
I felt free to screenshot.
You can use "Mistakes were made and I was there"
Sounds bureaucratic and shitty. Ominous. Kafkaesque, even.
I would add that creating your own metaphors rather than using the beaten ones, as well as making them clear to any given reader/listener without additional explanation, is a very fun and enjoyable part of communication.
My main disagreement in this is about jargon. I think jargon _is_ dangerous in a political context where people are simply using it to appear more informed than they actually are, but I think jargon is absolutely necessary in an academic context where you need to communicate very complex ideas in as few words as possible.
Two mathematicians could have a discussion about Groups which would be completely nonsensical to the average person, but would be nigh impossible if you had to unpack the jargon every time you wanted to talk about a concept. The same logic would apply to something like gender studies as well. Writing an academic paper requires jargon so other academics don't have to trudge through pages of explanations for concepts they already know.
It's interesting, especially in humanities, that jargon is used to express a complex idea in as few words as possible - but then you combine it with as much verbal dressing as you possibly can squeeze on top.
I agree. Part of the problem is words having both everyday and academic meanings, and I think (particularly in the humanities), uninformed critics will try to pick apart what someone is saying by using an everyday interpretation of an academic statement.
This fortunately doesn't happen as much in maths, but it would be as strange as someone looking at the definition of a group and saying "That's absurd! I live with a group of people, and they don't have a binary operation defined on them."
Also yes, thank Bob for jargon. Can't imagine having to say "a set together with a binary operation defined on its elements, satisfying closure, associativity and the existence of an identity element" every time I meant "group".
@@hughcaldwell1034 Mind you, about half the words you used to define "group" are themselves jargon.
@@KaiHenningsen You're right - but I'm not expanding my brackets any further than that...
@@hughcaldwell1034 And for me, you don't need to - I already knew what a group (in math) was in the first place. 😀 My point was more that in any field, you usually define technical terms by reference to _other_ technical terms. Now if you want to explain terms to the general public, you obviously can't do that, but you inevitably need at least a paragraph where you could formerly use one technical term. Target audience matters. A lot.
Just get your words to help the others mind touch the reality, the substance you're wanting to convey or meet in. This is the essence of pure and clear writing.
I liked in Bonhoeffer’s biography how its explained that his family is trained to not waste words or ideas. Not to spew ideas without contemplating them nor speak without organizing.
Yay. Been a while since we got cosmic content! It’s not something I care about but I’m still gonna watch it. Alex is smart!
Excellent video, as always. Or should I say doubleplusgood!? And a nice break from your more deeply philosophical offerings. One of Orwell's six rules brings to mind something E.M. Forster wrote (I fear I'll mangle the quote): the best writing is that to which no word may be added nor from which any word may be removed. Finally, how lovely to see Orwell's actual grave. Thank you for that bit of (dare I say) icing on the cake. Erm...instead, is "edit on the TikTok" a better metaphor?
I learned so much from my Catholicism Professor. Having to take a 200 level Religious studies class had me going in with some low expectations, but he was all about concise and precise language. He despised words as filler and really helped me mold the way I even looked at language. I believe it helped me greatly in writing essays, fiction and poetry.
"An Invasion, as an Operation"
Well done
I love the new format of your videos. Especially the zoom on the book with the actual thing you are quoting
Thank you Alex, very clearly summarised and presented.
Orwell’s essay here is rather a lesson in clarity of thought and precise writing. At least that’s how I have understood it.
More of these please Alex, they are very helpful.
I believe the Judith Butler quote won an award for being especially unclear. The mention of it in the video really caught my interest. I have always been sceptical to the humbug accusations when it comes to writing in the humanities, maybe especielly when it comes to gender studies. Don't get me wrong, I have no idea what she is saying either, but it is almost as though people assume that the whole field is just meaningless jargon because they use complicated words and phrases that laymen doesn't understand. I have a background in physics, and this sort of thing of course exist here as well, but specific language is much more accepted because physics has a view of being almost intrinsically objective in contrast to for example gender studies. Why is it that physicists can use complicated language that very few understand, but when experts in gender studies to the same they get critizised?
I am glad you are asking this question because I think more STEM people should try to understand this and not be so dismissive of the humanities. I have an engineering background but I started to read philosophy out of personal interest. I think philosophy terms are unlucky in that they seem similar enough to everyday words, even though they have very specific meanings different from their everyday counterparts. So when people not familiar with its context read a sentence like the Butler quote and it is unintelligible to them they think it's the authors fault, since those everyday words normally should make sense. They don't have the same expectation when it comes to science terms, since those terms do not have everyday counterparts and people do not have the false assumption to understand that jargon. Unfortunately there is no shortcut to understand philosophy texts like this one. They are written for experts in the field and it takes years of study to fully understand. And just as you suggested, it is unfair to criticize this when it is regarded as given that scientific papers can also only be fully understood by experts in their respective fields as well.
I study Linguistics and am a non-native speaker of English, and I completely agree with your sentiment. Physics and Sociology have one thing in common: Terminology.
What differs is that Sociology and other humanities tend to use a lot of Latinate and Grecian (see what I did there?) vocabulary with "x of y (of z)" constructions as terms. Those we expect to be very specific and have complex definitions.
. Physics, and especially Astrophysics, uses a lot very vague and generic words and phrases as terms instead, like "Black Hole", "Dark Matter" that we expect to be easy to understand and casually use, but they tend to be just as specific and narrowly defined as terms in humanities even though the constructions "(z) y x" are more easily digestible to us because they come from English (Germanic).
-So, no matter what kind of academic text you read, you need to be able to spot when a word is a term and when it's not.
If we extrapolate the difference in academia to be a general linguistic difference, I think something becomes clear: Germanic languages, like English, tend to focus on the *way* things behave and are, whereas Romance languages and Greek focus on the *positioning* of things. We can see this in how the two different language families use verbs:
in English, you *climb* a mountain or a tree no matter which direction you are going. The verb describes the way you behave. Like, we can probably imagine you using your arms or getting sweaty.
in Latin words, you *ascend* and *descend* depending on which direction you are going, but the verb doesn't describe anything about how you behave.
In either language, you can optionally use adverbs and prepositions to add the information you are missing from the other, but, studies have shown that speakers of Romance languages retain information about positioning and movement in space better than Germanic speakers, while the latter retain information about the manner of movement better.
Anyway, the point is that I think a lot of academic language has inherited a way of conveying information that draws heavily on the way Romance languages do things, and this is why it seems abstract to English speakers,,, however
As an avid reader of academic texts, I have to say that the Judith Butler text was complicated, yes. But I would be able to break it down once I had looked up all the definitions of the terms. The example Orwell gave of good writing did not make sense to me at all. (probably something to do with me being a 2nd language speaker of English)
What strikes me as irritating about this George Orwell essay is how Linguistically naive it is. It is unironically good advice for when trying to communicate information in an amicable way, but the fact is that so much of language is not about conveying the truth and more about informing others about yourself (word choice) and your opinions on what is being said (tiny adverbs like "though" have a huge impact), and sometimes your intended audience are not friendly, in which case passives are a great tool.
We can't really police language because it already exists. So we should teach people how it is used and strategies to get people to use language against language instead. For instance, what is the response to "Mistakes were made."?
-"By who?"
It's already built into the language.
ps. I also disagree with Orwell that passives are generally bad. It depends on what kind of entity is the subject. If it's a thing we expect to be actively able to do stuff, we expect active verbs, but if it's a dead object then we expect passives.
"The pig got its bristles cut."
vs
"The broom got its bristles cut"
vs
"The pig's bristles were cut"
vs
"The broom's bristles were cut"
My two cents is that it seems a lot easier (and physicists more willing) to provide a definition of a specific term in physics than gender studies professors do for their own field. From what I've seen, physicists seem less likely to resort to the "Courtier's reply" (read this book!/it's not my job to educate you!)
I'd also agree that Orwell was not doing linguistics, but that raises the question: Did he intend to do linguistics? It seems to me that he wasn't. He was giving advice for good political writing, which often involves people rather than nonliving objects.
Personally I'd object to his rejection of the "not un-" construction as well. It shows more uncertainty than the plain form.
@@vampyricon7026 I don't know how one would go about objectively testing this, but are you sure about your first observation? Who are those gender studies professors that resort to "Courtier's reply"? I'd be more inclined to believe that this is a biased perspective you may have received from social media websites. I have seen many terminally online people who are completely out of touch with reality display that sort of behaviour, but it's probably not as common with academics. Also, you can probably think of a similarly small number of experts in science with inflated egos that are unwilling to explain things in their domain and look down on people. I think most experts, whether in science or the humanities, actually enjoy explaining concepts about the topics they have been studying for their whole lives.
I agree with your next two paragraphs, well put.
exactly! im a huge fan of this guys work but this video has a few bad takes. the way hes extolls Orwell's advice feels a bit prescriptivist, especially as he wasnt really clear about how narrow of a range of communication these guidelines are relevant for. and then dismissing esteemed feminist scholars as writing nonsense because its too complicated for him to understand? thats a weird move, i would expect him to have more humility about the scope of his ignorance. for me, the Judith Butler quote was easier to follow than the bible verse because thats the kind of writing ive been reading lately, which really bothers me because im not smarter than him, so i can tell he just never actually tried to understand scholarly humanities writing. the fact that he doesnt seem to know/care how his dismissiveness cooperates with a larger dismissal of feminist thought is concerning too.
Continuing our review of the language of the elected, it seems that, linguistically, politicians hit their truest stride when they find themselves in trouble. At times like these, the explanations typically begin with a single word: miscommunication.
“How do you answer these felony charges, Senator?”
“The whole thing was a miscommunication.”
“But what about the tapes?”
“They took them out of context. They twisted my words.” Nice touch. A person who routinely spends his time bending and torturing the English language telling us that someone has twisted his words.
But as the problem gets worse, and his troubles increase, he’s forced to take his explanation in a new direction. He now tells us that “The whole thing has been blown out of proportion.” And by the way, have you noticed with these blown-out-of-proportion people that it’s always “the whole thing”? Apparently, no one has ever claimed that a only a small part of something has been blown out of proportion.
But as time passes and the evidence continues to accumulate, our hero suddenly changes direction and begins using public-relations jujitsu. He says, “We’re trying to get to the bottom of this.” We. Suddenly, he’s on the side of the law. “We’re trying to get to the bottom of this, so we can get the facts out to the American people.” Nice. The American people. Always try to throw them in; it makes it sound as if you actually care.
As the stakes continue to rise, our hero now makes a subtle shift and says, “I’m willing to trust in the fairness of the American people.” Clearly, he’s trying to tell us something: that there may just be a little fire causing all the smoke. But notice he’s still at the I-have-nothing-to-hide stage.
But then, slowly, “I’m willing to trust in the fairness of the American people” progresses to “There is no credible evidence,” and before long, we’re hearing the very telling, “No one has proven a thing.”
Now, if things are on track in this drama, and the standard linguistic path of the guilty is being followed faithfully, “No one has proven a thing” will precede the stage when our hero begins to employ that particularly annoying technique: Ask-yourself-questions-and-then-answer-them:
“Did I show poor judgment? Yes. Was there inappropriate behavior? Yes. Do I wish this never happened? Of course. But did I break the law? That’s not the issue.”
The calendar is marching, however, and it soon becomes clear that our friend is most likely quite guilty, indeed. We know this, because he now shifts into that sublime use of the passive voice: mistakes were made. The beauty of mistakes were made is that it doesn’t really identify who made them. You’re invited to think what you wish. Bad advice? Poor staff work? Voodoo curse?
But it’s too late. Mistakes were made quickly becomes eventually I will be exonerated, which then morphs into I have faith in the American judicial system, and the progression ends with that plaintive cry, whatever happened to innocent until proven guilty? Whatever happened to innocent until proven guilty; well, he’s about to find out.
Eventually, in full retreat (and federal custody), he shuffles off in his attractive orange jumpsuit, and can be heard muttering that most modern of mea culpas: “I just want to put this thing behind me and get on with my life.” And to emphasize how sincere he is, he announces, “I’m taking responsibility for my actions.” How novel! Imagine; taking responsibility. He says it as though it were a recently developed technique.
Whenever I hear that sort of thing on the news, I always want to ask one of these I’m-taking-responsibility-for-my-actions people whether or not they’d be willing to take responsibility for my actions. You know, gambling debts, paternity suits, outstanding warrants. Can you help me out here, pal?
Regarding this whole put-this-thing-behind-me idea in general, here’s what I’d like to do. I’d like to put this I-want-to-put-this-thing-behind-me-and-get-on-with-my-life thing behind me and get on with my life. May I repeat that for you? I’d like to put this I-want-to-put-this-thing-behind-me-and-get-on-with-my-life thing behind me and get on with my life.
I think one of the problems in this country is that too many people are screwing things up, committing crimes and then getting on with their lives. What is really needed for public officials who shame themselves is ritual suicide. Hara-kiri. Like those Japanese business executives who mismanage corporations into bankruptcy. Never mind the lawyers and the public relations and the press conferences, get that big knife out of the kitchen drawer and do the right thing.
- George Carlin, _When Will Jesus Bring The Pork Chops?_
Got a couple paragraphs in and thought, "this sounds like Carlin" then realized I'd read it before.
GOAT
Booooooring. Stems down to mechanical anglo saxons and organic prussians way of thinking. I like the vagueness critique though.
@@francisgutierrez9674,
“Irony is wasted on the stupid.” - Oscar Wilde
George Carlin is the best comedian to date (Doug Stanhope being the best living one). He had a black belt in the English language:
th-cam.com/video/Lk_dRzaBoUM/w-d-xo.html
Sorry, but you missed the most important part of the USA, politics when his friends in high places give him a full pardon!!!
No public trial, no one sees his notes, no one reads his ho hos date book of names! Free man, go home and count your money. Don't count your dead!
Love this text. Think it's a must-read for people interested in writing. Influences everything I write for whatever that's worth. Including the songs and poetry. Thanks for covering it!
Man, these videos are amazing.
Oops I think I'm VERY guilty of the second one 😬 (using many words instead of just one) to avoid being repetitive since I don't know that many English words (English is my second language). Also to reach the minimum word count for my assignments lol. However, in my defense, my other reason for doing that is to avoid the forth problem (using words incorrectly to the point that it becomes meaningless or misconstrued). Usually instead of using one word to describe an action, I just describe the action/specify what I mean. This way, I would be less likely to use words incorrectly and I would also avoid mislabeling the action.
Whenever I'm describing something, I'm always reminded of that painting of a pipe with some French words written under it that translates to "This is not a pipe" (EDIT: The painting is called "The Treachery of Images" by René Magritte). That made me realize that words are only an approximation of our understanding of whatever information we want to express, so I always try to be as specific as I can with my words. I might be talking too much right now actually so thank you to anyone who read the whole thing. I'll shut up now.
I always love how you segue into the sponsor 😂 This was such a good video!
_Deepak Chopra has left the chat_
West should stop calling Hakenkreuz (Hooked cross).... Swastika.
"Why use many word when few word does trick" George Orwell.
This was rather stellar. I’m glad youtube recommened this to me. Happy to sub, like, and comment.
What infuriates me is that my whole life my family was teaching me to speak with precision JUST SO I COULD GO INTO THE WORLD WHERE EVERYONE TWISTS MY WORDS. Most humans take anything others say and filter it through so many emotions, fallacies, biases that the message that enters their brain is corroded and twisted all the way. The meaning gets lost! I got to the point where I don't really understand why should I still try to communicate with others. So now when I insist that we should re-learn to communicate with precision, everyone tells me that I'm naive, it's never gonna happen and society demands that I learn to speak in a way that pleases emotions and makes people feel good. I refuse.
So what you're saying is that you're a loser with no social skills? Look, that's though but I can give you lessons on how to be more charismatic for 100$/hour.
Speaking with precision still saves your words from being twisted to an extent- but obviously it's not a perfect fix.
Did you also note that people use words they do not know the meaning of, but give them a meaning that they alone understand?
i for one understood what you said perfectly, and i agree with it except that point you made about cranberry jam. strawberry jam is obviously superior!
While I empathise with your position as you've presented it, I do think it's possible for all of this to be said by someone who just can't handle slang or pick up on context/social clues to save their lives.
I've noticed that the more words you use the more "digital" the statement becomes, without masterful usage of the language it's easier to fall into semantic entropy (tangentiality) more often than not, rather than complex and self-referenced synergyc semantic multiplicity: elegant poetry.
😂
I like his mention of Fascism. People throw the word around as a synonym for totalitarianism. When I use it I am referring specifically to authorization corporate capitalism as originally envisioned by Mussolini. Next time I use the term I will have to be more specific.
Socialism is another one that gets thrown around. I understand socialism to be worker control of the means of production. But people on the right and left use it to mean stuff done by the government. Bernie Sanders calls himself a socialist. When he would more rightly be termed a social democrat.
Democracy is another good one. Authoritarian socialist countries have a habit of calling themselves democratic. The Democratic people's republic of Korea; Democratic Kampuchea; Geman democratic republic. And then you have people saying that the US isn't a democracy it's a republic.
Another good term is terrorism. As the saying goes "one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter". Calling a person or group terrorist is a way of painting them as really terrible. Funny enough this term tends to get applied to non state actors. If a non state actor does the dame sort of thing as a state, such as targeting civilians; they are terrorists but the state isn't. Being a state grants a certain level of legitimacy.
Your thoughtful words sparkle like the stars on a clear desert night - delicate points of light that imply great distance and vastness, if you decide to undertake the journey to them.
Good Video, when I in a few years go trough all yotube comments I ever made I hereby recommend myself to watch it again.
I just re-read Orwell's essay "My Country - Right or Left" about the dilemmas of supporting a government at a time of crisis with whom you disagree.
As to language I would add to Orwell's list Simon Hoggart's maxim that you should check a politician's speech for platitudes (the bleeding obvious in other words) by considering the negation. So for example the Chancellor will say "This government is committed to introducing an efficient and just tax system for the whole country". As opposed to a shambolic and unfair system?
The question then is , why are they trying to fill the time with meaningless phrases? What are they not saying?
“It’s something of a trope to recognise that the English language is in decline.”
Overuse of the word ‘trope’ being a good example. 🤣
Jordan Peterson is a good example of poor accuracy when speaking and writing, he will often use complex words and vague phrases to form a sentence that will sound inspirational to a credulous audience
But what about them hierarchical substrates?
Lobsters, bahbee
This is a really simple but effective set/lighting/shot combo. Just thought it deserved some recognition.
Im glad you brought up how prevalent this problem is within academia as well. Particularely so when students are taught to "muddy the water" to make it seem deep. These students then often end up in high paying corporate jobs/governmental institutions where they are incentivized to keep up this kind of fuzzy communication; either to protect their party/thei own re-election prospects or the good name of their company.
I think perhaps the remedy is to try to meet one another and communicate more with the intention of deepening our understanding, instead of playing status games around who has the biggest vocabulary!
Loved this. It's still such a valid take on the English language. Have you heard of content design? It builds on principles that are very similar to the ones Orwell describes.
"Valid". There's another meaningless word for the list!
@@omp199 no. Wow. Comments full of people like you that seem to think words are too fancy. It means good, alright. Having some synonyms is fine, it's not unclear,it's not making the sentence too long,it's fine.
@@gur262 The comments are full of people who claim to have liked the video whilst at the same time showing no sign of having taken in its message. That's the real "wow", here.
"Valid" is not a synonym for good. Perhaps English isn't your first language, so here are some of its definitions, copied and pasted from Oxford Languages:
1. (of an argument or point) having a sound basis in logic or fact; reasonable or cogent.
2. legally binding due to having been executed in compliance with the law.
3. legally or officially acceptable.
"Good" is not one of them.
People on the Internet will often use the word "valid" without thought and without having any real sense of what they are trying to convey with the word.
The main message of the video is that you should think about what you mean and to use words that convey the meaning without vagueness or ambiguity.
I think one of the first things we need to do is stop using the word valid in this manner, the amount of times I see people saying something like "sleeping in is valid" on TikTok or Twitter is too much
@@omp199 lol. By trying to say my use of the word valid was wrong, you've just proved it was correct
Please have the great physicist David Deutsch on your podcast. Would be lovely to hear the both of you talk, he too lives in Oxford! His books The Fabric of Reality and The Beginning of Infinity are truly great works.
I love that man. Would be very interesting having them discuss the consciousness of animals as I think Deutsch assumes they aren't (though he doesn't think consciousness is the only morally significant variable).
That would be mind blowing, two of my favourite people to listen to, both express themselves so clearly. Alex should really check out Deutsch's books.
"Intended to feign sophistication"
Damn that's the PROPER use of words through brevity and meaning
In addition to using these guidelines when writing, they form a wonderful tool when listening to politicians. The words and structures _some_ of them frequently employ, beautifully highlight their propensity for deniable obfuscation.
As a foreign writer trying to improve my English, this is gold! Thanks a lot for this recommendation. I'm reading it and some of the tips are general and also applied to "writing well" in other languages, but some of them are very specific to English and it would probably take years before I could learn them spontaneously. Thanks again!
Writing like this is a huge deal in the sciences as well, and it has to do with a crisis of academia. A crisis where researchers are pressured to publish as much as possible as often as possible to stay relevant which results in researchers using language that obscures their points so it's harder to pin down, therefore harder to refute.
There's a free Coursera course called "Writing in the Sciences" where Dr. Kristina Sainani points out some of the things you've illustrated here.
Cheers!
9:35 I never thought of a foot race with "toe the line." It always made me think of a group of people with a common cause (politicians, usually) all standing behind the party line (i.e. their policies/beliefs etc), some of them with their toes on but not over the line. If someone breaks ranks and steps over the line, they're obviously not toeing the line anymore and the party needs to decide if and how to punish them.
It always made me think of someone being made to walk a straight line by the police, on suspicion of drunk driving, when you really have to watch your step.
Using a dead metaphor is cringe.
@@_shadow_1
Using the phrase "_ is cringe" is using a dead metaphor.
@@TheSkyGuy77 That was the point.
I agree with most of Orwell's (or Blair's) points in his essay except the presumption that politicians should want to be more clear. That is precisely what modern politicians strive to avoid. All modern politicians want to be as ambiguous and vague as possible so that they can avoid being pinned down to a certain view - one of the reasons why I hate politicians.
I hate them too. Politicians should be bitchslapped until they make their position so clear that there is literally no backing out anymore, and then they get bitchslapped for their stupid position.
This is why I liked Trump(not American btw, but nevertheless). You knew his stance on issues presented to him as clear as crystal. He wanted other countries to pay for things like America did, and so he said without sugarcoating such a controversial idea. Maybe it's because the media doesn't extensively cover Biden, or maybe it's because he is not clear at conveying his decisions like Trump, I have no idea what his stance is, on topics like the Russian invasion.
@@sudind LOL, you don't know where Biden stands on Russian invasion of Ukraine? He said that Russia is committing war crimes! Do you know where Trump stands on Russian invasion of Ukraine? He first said that Putin is a smart man and a good leader. Even a few days ago, he couldn't say that what Putin is doing is evil. BTW, saying you liked Trump because you know where he stands on issues is like saying you like a racist because you know where he stands. Maybe you should know where he stands before deciding whether you like or dislike someone?
@@raymondlee546 Yeah, I don't like him but it doesn't mean I don't dislike Biden's kkk corpse at least as much. I'd take bullshit libertarian capitalism over the authoritarian NWO at this point.
But they all should be removed all the same, all the globalist lizard bitches regardless of what controlled resistance they pretend to be. They're all the same.
@@raymondlee546 i really don't care about America's internal issues. He took his troops out of Afghanistan. Thats what I liked: his bluntness. He believed America should meddle less in the affairs of other countries, and he acted on that belief. He said countries like Germany should pay more for NATO, because they could afford to, but still didn't. And he said that straightforward. He believed Germany was too heavily reliant on Russian gas and should step away from Putin, and he said the same thing clear as daylight.
Biden meanwhile introduces things like the "Green Deal" so just when I'm assuming the oil corporations will have a hard time, the oil production is higher than ever. Fracking is still allowed, for what reason? What positive thing has the "Green Deal" done? What about it is so green?
I've learned so much from this video.Thank you!
The most insightful takeaway for me was the way people read over dying metaphors: they become a turn of phrase and cease to evoke imagery.
I did a module in A Level English where I had to write in the style of an author, I chose Orwell, it was quite freeing actually.
Hi, I would have chosen Hemingway, love and peace 🕊️!
@@billh.1940 That's a good one too!
The other day a friend said that Russia was invading Ukraine to free it from Fascism. I was so perplexed. Wtf do they mean by Fascism? I started Googling.
Turns out Orwell already realized the word had no meaning except for bad to that person saying it. This was excellent Alex!
Ukraine unironically has a neonazi presence in its military, but I completely agree. Fascism means nothing but an accusation of something that can no longer be described.
Same thing for socialism in my opinion; the definition of the word socialism has changed over the years and is now considered to be a synonym for communism or "when the government owns everything". Political actors love to change the definition of words if it benefits them.
Orwell literally left to fight facists in Spain
@@gusleybighusley6062 I understand the whole point is that words like socialism have lost their meaning. But I don't know anyone who claims socialism is when the government owns everything. That goes against the often repeated socialist ideas that workers should own the means of production, etc.
@@gusleybighusley6062 Socialism has meaning because a number of people are socialist and identify as such, along with the fact that Marx and Engles laid out plain definitions for both socialism and communism in their works. While many people use it wrong, there are always a number of people using it correctly and there are only a few valid and widely used definitions
Fascism, in contrast, has never been defined by the original fascists and only can be described by the academics that have researched it. The fact that academics don't agree or give a clear definition of fascism and the fact that fascists perpetrated one of the worst events people remember are why fascism no longer has meaning.
It is wrong to say fascism, "has no meaning". Anything distinctly identifiable deserves its own word. Otherwise we are using words applied elsewhere for different meanings. What is fascism? Hierarchic nationalism driven by radical conservatism in cooperation with private interests. What else would such a phenomenon possibly be called? There is no other singular word available. Dictatorship? No, because dictatorship can be in-place with private economic cooperation AND without it. Oligarchy? No, because an oligarchy doesn't have to be radically conservative. Can we just say "radical conservatism"? No, because these cooperative and nationalist elements aren't necessarily sought nor readily identified.
I spent all day yesterday and today dying over how boring writing an essay was.
And now... here I am, before bed, watching a video on the same subject. But apparently my brain thought this would be "fun."
Worst part is that I suck at English lmao
Thanks mate. Going to show a clip of this to my 10th grade English class tomorrow.
This is not-unobjectively, categorically, indubitably fantastic.
Many thanks.
Share this video to Jordan Peterson
I feel like schadenfreude is one of those foreign words that needs to be used in certain situations. It's unclear if the audience doesn't understand it, but once they do it's the only word capable of describing that feeling
Good example. The word "schadenfreude" is precise and unambiguous.
Not translating some words from German, just because it is a compound word, is just laziness or not understanding the concept enough.
Schadenfreude stems out of two words, just as much as malicious joy, an excellent translation, does.
@@PhysiKarlz No, I understand the concept and understand the compound translations. Assuming it's laziness on my behalf is pretty arrogant.
If I said "I experienced malicious joy when he lost his job" to someone in English they would ask what the fuck I'm talking about. If I say "I experienced schadenfreude when he lost his job" to someone who understands the word it would sound better. My point is that schadenfreude has become a popular foreign word in the English world recently that using it in place of something like "malicious joy" communicates the emotion better.
@@RogueAstro85 You enjoy the loss or harm experienced by someone else. Malicious joy. It sounds like you prefer the other word just because it doesn't sound malicious, when it still is!
I speak the language of German every single day by the way.
@@PhysiKarlz No, it's just that "malicious joy" isn't a common phrase in America.
I love that you're bringing attention to Orwell, I really do
It's a really good video, don't get me wrong!
But I find it a little ironic that the summary of Orwell's writing takes longer than it would to actually read it.
This was a wonderful and enlightening video essay man!
8:00 wow, in Dutch, we actually use the word 'brand' for a 'fire' (not like a campfire, which would be 'kampvuur', but you would use it talking about a house or forest on fire). Never new it had something to do with fire in English aswell.
Critiques of Judith Butler’s writing style quickly become tiresome. In works such as _Gender Trouble_ and _Bodies That Matter,_ Butler carefully adopts a style reflecting their subject and point, particularly with regard to subjectification and the formation of the subject. While not necessarily one’s cup of tea, the move is perfectly reasonable and instructive. It should not be considered objectively improper.
Great video! I feel atheist youtube has become too formulaic, so I'm excited to see you trying out new types of content.
Fascinating piece and some consideration of these rules, whether you adopt them all or not, will improve your writing. Interestingly, he is ok with dead metaphors but not dying metaphors. How do they die if not beaten like a dead horse? :) And, how do we distinguish between a dying one and a dead one?
"Never use a metaphor, simile, or other figure of speech which you are used to seeing in print."
Essentially, the definition of dead/dying depends on the individual and their own encounters with each phrase, but the best way Orwell found to make that distinction was by using what you see regularly in print as 'dying' and those you'd find in more archaic works or spoken by older generations as 'dead'.
I think the reason its far more acceptable to use a dead metaphor is because you can resurrect its meaning, or morph it to fit a new situation with new imagery far easier than a phrase that is dying. Like how your parents' vernacular makes more sense than when they try to be hip and use(butcher) the new slang, if that makes sense.
when figuratively literally got added as an alternate meaning of literally. In my communication course, brevity was the goal, clarity was a must, and length got points deducted. Orwell would be proud.
This video helped me understand the essay way better and absorb it. Brilliant as always, thank you Alex!
Doubleplusgood.
"or an invasion as an operation"
Putin: **sweats nervously**
I think you're mixing things up a good bit here, lumping both complex academic language that needs that complexity to be as short as it is, like with that quote from Butler, and complex language that is needlessly verbose to confuse, hide, and obfuscate.
One of those things is necessary for the relative brevity it enables. The other is not.
Journalism student in the University of Puerto Rico here. This is so accurate even for Spanish journalism.
Loved this video. I also don't agree with everything he says, I like a bit of linguistic indulgence as you say, but his points are important to consider.
What were his thoughts on misleading click bait titles?
Alex really made a 23 minute long video full of citations just to say “big words bad”
Well it's somewhat true never use 100 words where 10 will do
I doubt very much that Orwell would ever have used the ubiquitous, stuttering "for free" (aka "for nothing"), let alone "oftentimes" (the bloated US version of "often"), nor do I think he'd ever have confused "less" with "fewer", or mispronounced "swathes" (long A) to rhyme with "moths" like you did...
Nitpicky points I know, but they rather blunted the impact of an otherwise excellent talk about a great writer who prized accuracy and clarity!
Fascinating. Will be taking these into account!
I'm currently following a class, my exam being in 2 days, and I need to read around 140 pages worth of articles that are filled with words that Orwell would scream at. There's like one important thing on every page that could just as well be written in 1 sentence. It gives me such a headache and it's so unnecessary.
if the course material is bad then why not drop out?
I described myself as "training wheels on a tricycle" once when presenting a seminar on a paper written by a professor in attendance at the seminar, which the audience seemed to enjoy.
I'd like to see the legal profession adopt some of these recommendations, particularly in the realm of contractual drafting.
They would've enjoyed more if you'd removed yourself from the premises
This might have been addressed in the sub-thread on jargon, but I lost track of it and don't feel like scrolling through 1600-odd posts looking for it.
Like most jargon, the intent of legalese is to be as precise and unambiguous as possible, within its own context. It runs into the problem of assigning different meanings to words in common usage. It's also easily subject to misuse taking advantage of those ambiguities (see "lies, damned lies, and statistics"), and because of the connection between law and politics we end up with exactly what Orwell was complaining about.
Looking back on what I just wrote, I think I could be accused of violating at least one of Orwell's guidelines. Que sera, sera. ;)
I also hate the way people speak. When someone uses the term "Orwellian" or say something is "like 1984" I get irrationally upset. Both American political parties say that everything the other party does is Orwellian, even if it is, in fact, not Orwellian. It is such a washed out and overused term that it has basically no meaning. If someone is said to have done something Orwellian, you would have no clue what was actually done, because the term has just changed into being something that the speaker disagrees with. The misuse of the word Orwellian is honestly quite Orwellian.
What if just about everything both those parties do is in fact Orwellian and you can only understand it by understanding the nature of the left vs right mind control the elite are using?
"Orwellian" should be somehow kept to mean what it really means, the point of 1984: wielding contradictions to gaslight people until they abandon their own will and replace it with blind loyalty.
@@gekkobear1650 It is Orwellian, but it has taken one further step beyond what Orwell described: instead of speaking in contradictions, the left/right has mastered using one word with contradictory meanings.
@@FlanaFugue isn't that what Orwell described happening to the word "truth" though?
@@gekkobear1650 I think I was refering to something that needed more description from my side... sorry. Yes, you're right, of course.
I once had a course at university where in the title it said something like good communication or something, and when I read the course description I had no idea what it said. It was quite the meme in my group of friends ^^
The lesson of this video is summarized in Jordan Peterson's rule #10 in his book "12 Rules for Life" which states simply:
"Be precise in your speech"
Great video! Only your description of Butlers endless sentence as "meaningless verbiage" bothered me as being over the top (where did this metaphor actually came from? Archery?). It certainly was awfully written and a verbiage, but not meaningless. In fact I understood every word of it and I'm not even a native english speaker. So to me, knowing the jargon she was using, it actually was "very insightful". But surely the writing was overly complicated and someone should tell her to put a period every once in a while. But to be fair: A lot of philosophers do this. Think of Kant, Hegel etc. Doesn't make it better though :)