The reputation of George Orwell, still one of the most widely read and admired twentieth century writers in English more than half a century after his death, hardly needs protecting. It was, then, interesting to see the self-appointed guardians of the flame line up to defend his honour when it was impugned last month by novelist and journalist Will Self in an article for the BBC.

Orwell, Self argued, was a literary mediocrity and, worse, an inflexible stickler for a conservative and unreasonably prescriptive style of English. ‘Self, of course, is a bit of a joke,’ declared the Telegraph’s Michael Henderson in response. Salon’s Laura Miller was not having a bar of it either, launching a literary attack of her own: ‘He [Self] is not so much an obscure writer as an exhausting one, and not always able to convince readers that the rewards his work offers will be worth the effort it takes to get them.’

It’s worth pointing out right away, as neither Henderson nor Miller bothered, that Self, by his own admission, has a lot of time for Orwell: he’s read The Road to Wigan Pier and Down and Out in Paris and London multiple times, can still detect ‘solid virtues’ in the novels Keep the Aspidistra Flying, A Clergyman’s Daughter and Coming up for Air, and finds that the essays can be ‘returned to again and again’. So what’s Self’s problem? It is, unsurprisingly for an author known for his ultra-modernist verbiage and penchant for archaic nouns, Orwell’s prose style. That seems, at first glance, a pretty soft target – not many people would argue that the lasting value of Nineteen Eighty-Four and Animal Farm has more to do with literary merit than political insight.

But Self, it turns out, has not really been thinking about Orwell’s novels but about the essays he claims to admire – indeed, one essay in particular, ‘Politics and the English Language.’ Written in 1945, it is still the one that everybody has read. It is the summa of the project Orwell as a writer never abandoned: to, in his own words, ‘make political writing into an art’. Even more famous than the essay itself are the six rules it contains, proposed by Orwell as inoculations against ‘stale or mixed images, all prefabricated phrases, needless repetitions, and humbug and vagueness generally’.

Self finds in the essay, instead, an Orwellian authoritarianism designed to privilege a certain kind of Standard English over different ways of saying things – for example, the more grammatically complex African-American Vernacular English. Even putting aside the weak attempt at a sort of ‘gotcha’ moment by turning Orwell’s anti-fascism back on the author, Self is, of, course talking humbug.

For a start, the essay is full of caveats that Self, tellingly, fails to mention: ‘Look back through this essay, and for certain you will find that I have again and again committed the very faults I am protesting against’; ‘… it has nothing to do with archaism, with the salvaging of obsolete words and turns of speech, or with the setting up of a “standard English” which must never be departed from’.

The qualifier most pertinent to Self’s analysis might, however, be this one: ‘I have not here been considering the literary use of language, but merely language as an instrument for expressing and not for concealing or preventing thought’. Self is wrong to argue that what Orwell was trying to do was put up the floodwalls against the rising tides of language change. What horrified Orwell was not the ‘pretentiously Frenchified folderol that deforms our noble tongue’ but the increasing use of opaque language to euphemise injustice and inhumaneness. The essay, far from advocating zero tolerance pedantry, highlights an obvious truth that is easy enough for anyone to grasp: that the debasement of politics and language is a two-way street. If Orwell were alive today he’d be far less bothered about the incorporation into English of African-American colloquialisms than he would be about the new weasel words being employed to, as he famously put it, ‘make murder respectable’: ‘collateral damage’, ‘regime change’, ‘kinetic military action’.

It’s worth pointing all this out because it matters now as much, if not more than, ever. Clive James reminds us why in this way: ‘Orwell’s style shows us why a style is worth working at: not just because it gets us a byline and makes a splash but because it compresses and refines thought and feeling without ceasing to sound like human speech – which is to say, without ceasing to sound human. At a time when ideological politics still exercised such an appeal that hundreds of purportedly civilised voices had ceased to sound human, Orwell’s style stood out. The remarkable thing is that it still does.’ There is an art to Orwell’s artlessness, a seductive clarity that is in itself ideological and about which James warns us that ‘that’s the very reason we have to watch him like a hawk’. Self’s final blunder is to ignore the inconvenient truth that Orwell, the man who said that ‘all art is propaganda’, was perfectly aware of this.

Orwell himself – who is still undervalued as a literary critic – was not beyond taking other popular writers to task. In one of his best essays, ‘Lear, Tolstoy and the Fool’, he carefully dismantled the great Russian writer’s deservedly little-read takedown of Shakespeare. At the end of the essay, Orwell writes: ‘one cannot answer Tolstoy’s pamphlet, at least on its main counts. There is no argument by which one can defend a poem. It defends itself by surviving, or it is indefensible.’ I have read and enjoyed the books and journalism of both George Orwell and Will Self, but there is no question in my mind as to whose work will defend itself by enduring the longest.

Ben Brooker

Ben Brooker is a writer, editor, and critic based on the unceded lands of the Wurundjeri People of the Kulin Nation. His work has been featured by Overland, Australian Book Review, The Saturday Paper, MeanjinKill Your Darlings, and others in Australia and overseas.

Overland is a not-for-profit magazine with a proud history of supporting writers, and publishing ideas and voices often excluded from other places.

If you like this piece, or support Overland’s work in general, please subscribe or donate.

Related articles & Essays

Contribute to the conversation

  1. Orwell will still be read and respected as the genius he is when Self is a forgotten mediocrity. This reminds me of when Louis Nowra attacked Germaine Greer. It was like watching a minnow trying to swallow a whale. Self should just accept that Orwell was right and everything he said in ‘1984’ has come to pass, as our blind stumble towards WWIII and Big Brother and the Ministry of Truth confirms. Of course it’s hard lines that Self will never be able to produce such a masterpiece himself but as Tony Abbott is so fond of saying, ‘Shit happens.’

  2. I haven’t read Self’s piece, but Francis Mulhern also dumped on Orwell’s “characteristically wrong-headed, simplistic excursions on behalf of ‘plain’ language” in a
    recent New Left Review.

    Mulhern’s position, presumably too familiar and obvious to state in a short book review, was that illusions of linguistic transparency are naive; the more sophisticated writers don’t bother attempting straightforwardness. Of course this was a foundational belief of Althusserians (Mulhern was one), the characteristic jargon of whom was so uniquely obscure, evasive and unpleasant that you suspect Orwell had a point.

    Anyway, a good example of what Orwell deplored can be found in the Attorney-General’s explanatory memorandum to the Foreign Fighters Bill:

    The Bill engages the following human rights:
    (1) the right to life in Article 6 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR)
    (2) the right to freedom from arbitrary detention and the right to liberty of the person in Article 9 of the ICCPR
    (3) the right to freedom of movement in Article 12 of the ICCPR
    (4) the right to a fair trial, the right to minimum guarantees in criminal proceedings and the presumption of innocence in Article 14 of the ICCPR.


    For “engages”, in the opening sentence, read “derogates” or “annuls.”

    Now obviously this isn’t a very deft attempt to veil meaning and confuse people. The most successful euphemisms deflect the reader’s attention away from some inconvenience, by not drawing attention to themselves as conspicuous embellishments substituting for some missing original term.

    But if the euphemism is so semantically empty that it can’t bear any load, the reader will be forced to search for the original word in order to make sense of the sentence. “Engage” is like that. It’s such a vacuous verb that it fails to disguise what the bill actually does to human rights.

    But suppose they’d included a preposition after the verb. “Engage with” is acceptable and familiar, and wouldn’t ring too many alarm bells.

    Or imagine they’d inserted something else in between, like “the space of human rights” or “discourse of human rights”. That might have caused a few eyes to roll, but it would have been less obvious what was being said, to the speaker’s advantage. “Human rights” would have become a mere adjective modifying an abstract noun, rather than the very substantive matter at stake. The topic would have become human-rightsy in some fuzzy way, a decoration disguising the fact that actual legal protections are being cancelled.

    It’s the very bluntness, in the quoted text, of colliding “the Bill” with “human rights”, that the flimsy term “engage” can’t absorb. If, however, the sentence were inflated like a balloon by adding more and more abstract terms, these two particles wouldn’t collide so obviously.

    That’s more of less what Orwell was getting at. Obviously his prescriptions don’t work for all writing in all contexts, but for political communication (the everyday explanatory kind found in press releases and newspaper editorials, rather than the rousing hortatory kind) they’re an excellent guide. The obvious virtues of his essay shouldn’t be obscured by his veneration as A-plus anti-communist.

  3. Having been spending time recent engaged in as many MOOC as I am able muster the courage to investigate the learning potential of, and including the self proclaimed famous ModPo, about Modern and Contemporary American poetry, what a breath of fresh air it is to be reminded that all sensible writers understand a poem’s merit is in its survival.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *