Exaggeration nation: Orwell
Is George Orwell’s1984 the most influential novel ever written? That’s what Geoffrey Wheatcroft says in a recent essay in the New York Times:
No other [novel] can have so enriched the language. Try a Web search for countless contemporary uses of Newspeak, the thought police or doublethink – the expressions, that is: a glance at the political pages or op-ed columns provides plenty of examples of what those brilliant coinings describe.
My, with all this “coining” and “enrichment,” Orwell is practically the Royal Mint. Maybe Orwell’s words are still in circulation but are his ideas really in good condition?
In his 1946 essay “Politics and the English Language” Orwell excoriates writing “designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind.” Instead, he advocates writing as “an instrument for expressing and not for concealing or preventing thought.” Which of these two descriptions more accurately characterizes the op/ed prose that Orwell has supposedly influenced so profoundly?
In other words: How can a champion of the English language be so influential if the state of that language — especially in political writing — is so obviously dilapidated? Wheatcroft seems to measure importance as the provision of buzz words to dunderheaded hacks so that they can browbeat one another more wantonly. That’s like saying somebody makes the best baseball bats because of how many schoolyard bullies prefer them.
It’s also against the spirit of Orwell’s approach. Orwell criticized writers who borrow “ready-made” phrases and he deplored the use of specialized jargon where simpler words will do, so it is bizarre to celebrate him on the strength of the enduring appeal of his ready-made phrases and specialized jargon.
Don’t get me wrong. I’m a lifelong admirer of Orwell. I just feel obliged to point out that he would probably consider Wheatcroft’s usage of “influence” a little barbarous. Yes, many people still borrow a word or two from 1984. But in doing so, they don’t testify to Orwell’s sway so much as ignore it.
Latest posts by Neil Verma (Posts)
- Exaggeration nation: Kings of nothin’ - July 26, 2010
- Exaggeration nation: Busted - July 13, 2010
- Exaggeration nation: Military recruiters - May 17, 2010
- Exaggeration Nation: Nincompoops - April 28, 2010
- Exaggeration nation: Analogy challenge - April 23, 2010
Print This Post
“Yes, many people still borrow a word or two from 1984. But in doing so, they don’t testify to Orwell’s sway so much as ignore it.”
The major thrust of this post is already in the very block quote from Wheatcroft launching it – emphasis on the conclusion after the colon:
“No other [novel] can have so enriched the language. Try a Web search for countless contemporary uses of Newspeak, the thought police or doublethink – the expressions, that is: a glance at the political pages or op-ed columns provides plenty of examples of what those brilliant coinings describe.”
Wheatcroft nowhere claims Orwell’s influence has been in service to a restoration unto wholesomeness in our cultture, or in improved verbal or conceptual hygiene – the influence has been purely instrumental in the enlistment of his phrases as common currency by those at all levels, along the lines of your bullies-with-baseball-bats. And the fact that the more discerning writers at the top of the pyramid these last 60 years, from Dwight Macdonald to Timothy Garton Ash to Wheatcroft himself, have been enriched by reading Orwell is proof that the culture as a whole, happily, is anything but a monolith, in general as in the value of its appropriations of the author of 1984. I don’t see where Wheatcroft would disagree with the main thrust of this post, defend himself against the local charges against his essay though he might. The rest of his essay is well worth reading, especially if it prods readers to try Orwell’s superb essays, such as “The Art of Donald McGill” and “Reflections on Gandhi”, both of them, like many others, available free online:
http://orwell.ru/library/reviews/McGill/english/e_mcgill
http://www.orwell.ru/library/reviews/gandhi/english/e_gandhi
Thanks for your thoughts, and the links! I am a great fan of “Coming Up for Air,” myself.
I think you may have taken this post a little more seriously than it was intended. In this series I attempt to write in an exaggerated way about the exaggerations of others (hence the title). On the other hand, perhaps you really do think that 1984 is “plausibly described” as the most influential novel ever written. To me, that sounds like an exaggeration.
You’re right about the block quote – rereading it, I see that I was misled by the disharmony between the word “uses” and the word “examples.” My fault. Nice to see sharp readers out there – sharper than me.
Yet I still find it hard to reconcile the claim of Orwell’s great influence with the numerical supremacy of those who use language to obfuscate. To me, someone has “influence” if a great many people adhere earnestly to his or her ideas and the spirit behind them. I just don’t believe that’s the case with Orwell, or with 1984.
Thanks again!
Just to be contentious, I offer up Dante’s The Inferno as possibly one of the most influential novels of all time. It too had quotes that have become part of the popular lexicon (Abandon All Hope, All Ye Who Enter Here!), has influenced politics, and had a major influence on the religious beliefs of roughly a billion living people.
* I stuck an extra “All” in there. My bad.
Dante’s The Divine Comedy is not a novel. We also can’t include Shakespeare’s plays, Homer’s epics, etc.
Please educate the humble forester on the difference.
Isn’t a novel any form of fictious story, too long to be read in a single sitting?
Maybe we could simplify the problem? An alternative way of measuring “influence” might be to ask how many people have actually read the damn book. As of last year, Orwell’s 1984 has sold about 25 million copies. That’s less than Spenser Johnson’s “Who Moved My Cheese?” (26 million), Tolstoy’s “War and Peace” (36 Million), Lucy Maud Montgomery’s “Ann of Green Gables” (50 million) Salinger’s “The Catcher in the Rye” (65 million), or Dickens’ “A Tale of Two Cities” (200 million).
(see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_best-selling_books)
Or perhaps we ought to follow Scott’s instinct and concentrate on the category of “the novel.” Why not argue that the most influential novels in English are the earliest –- Malory’s “Le Morte d’Arthur,” Defoe’s “Robinson Crusoe” or Richardson’s “Pamela,” depending on your definition. The logic here would be that a novel is influential if it precedes and inspires more novelists. Alternatively, you might focus on books that inaugurate influential genres –- Walter Scott’s “Waverley” for the historical novel, or Shelley’s “Frankenstein” for science fiction, for instance.
Anyway, if our objective is to find a book we can “plausibly describe” as the most influential novel ever, metrics like reading and precedence are probably slightly more useful than the nebulous “enrichment of a language” model, if only because it is highly unlikely that we will arrive at a common account of what meaningful enrichment entails.
Mike, there can be some debate over what counts as a novel, but generally it should be written in prose. Poems — even really long, epic ones that tell ficticious stories, are poems, long verse, whatever people want to call it. They are not generally regarded as novels (people might make exceptions for works like Nabokov’s Pale Fire, but generally prose is required for something to be considered a novel, as literary or poetic as the prose can sometimes be).
Clearly Shakespeare wrote fictionalized tales, even if inspired by historical events, but whether or not they are long or short, they are plays — drama — not novels. You might not read Hamlet in a single sitting, and it might be ficticious, but it is a play, not a novel. Homer also did not write novels (no such thing existed). The issue is the “any form” you mention. The form helps to define what a novel is: a long-form prose work of fiction, or something like that (these definitions are never precise, with some considering something a short story that others call a novella, and so on).
If we were talking about what work or body of work of literature were most influential, 1984 wouldn’t be near the top (if it belongs on the novel list is a separate question). Novels have been around for less time than earlier forms (drama and poetry/epic poems), so relatively recent works have more of a shot at consideration of most influential or best novel, rather than literary work, which pits them against epic poems and drama, etc. throughout history. The older works are usually the most influential, partly because they came first and were models for the form and future writers.
Though I find the whole notion of trying to choose the most influential novel to be a waste of time. Next thing you know, people will want to give actors awards for best actor, as if such a thing could be determined or means anything.