# Four Bad Habits in Writing (According to George Orwell) Source: https://transaction.net/web/tutor/text/orwell.html ## 1.Dying Metaphors Brand new metaphors work well evoking fresh imagery in the reader’s mind. A dead metaphor is the opposite of this, when a metaphor has been used widely over a long period of time, it completely loses its imagery and simply becomes a part of every day language. “Brand new” is an example of this. A long time ago it would have evoked the imagery of a newly branded item fresh from the furnace. Since then the imagery has faded completely has the phrase has been absorbed into the common parlance of our language. There’s nothing wrong with using dead metaphors like “brand new” of course, as they are no different to using any other words. The problem it with *dying metaphors*, those that are not quite dead but on their way. Cliches that the reader glosses over without a moment’s thought. Set phrases, which save the writer from having to think about the words that they are writing. Create your own metaphors: Evoke never-before-seen imagery to communicate new ideas. ## 2. Verbal False Limbs When a single, plain english word clearly communicates what you are trying to say: use it. > render inoperative, militate against, make contact with, be subjected to, give rise to, give grounds for, have the effect of, play a leading part (role) in, make itself felt, take effect, exhibit a tendency to, serve the purpose of, etc., etc Instead of “render inoperative” use **break**. Instead of “militate against” use **fight**. Instead of “make contact with” use **** or **talked to**. Instead of “be subjected to” use *the active voice*. Instead of “give rise to”, “have the effect of”, “play a leading part in” or “take effect” say *he did that*. More examples of verbal false limbs: > with respect to, having regard to, the fact that, in view of, in the interests of, on the hypothesis that; ## 3. Pretentious Diction George Orwell’s own words are so sharp that I will simply refer to them. > Words like phenomenon, element, objective, categorical, basic, primary, promote, constitute, exhibit, exploit, utilize, eliminate, liquidate are used to dress up simple statements and give an air of scientific impartiality to biased judgments. > > Adjectives like epoch-making, epic, historic, unforgettable, triumphant, age-old, inevitable, inexorable, veritable are used to dignify the sordid processes of international politics, while writing that aims at glorifying war usually takes on an archaic color, its characteristic words being: realm, throne, chariot, mailed fist, trident, sword, shield, buckler, banner, jackboot, clarion. > Foreign words and phrases such as cul de sac, mutatis mutandis, status quo, weltanschauung, are used to give an air of culture and elegance. Except for the useful abbreviations i.e., e.g., [et al.] and etc., there is no real need for any of the hundreds of foreign phrases now current in English. > > Bad writers, and especially scientific, political, and sociological writers, are nearly always haunted by the notion that Latin or Greek words are grander than Saxon ones, and unnecessary words like expedite, ameliorate, predict, extraneous, deracinated, clandestine, subaqueous and hundreds of others constantly gain ground from their Anglo-Saxon opposite numbers…. > > It is often easier to make up words. . .(deregionalize, impermissible, extramarital, nonfragmentatory, and so forth) than to think up the English words that will cover one's meaning. The result, in general, is an increase in slovenliness and vagueness ## 4. Meaningless Words I will rewrite this in the future. > In certain kinds of writing, particularly in art criticism and literary criticism, it is normal to come across long passages which are almost completely lacking in meaning. > > Words like > romantic, plastic, values, human, dead, sentimental, natural, vitality, > as used in art criticism, are strictly meaningless, in the sense that they not only do not point to any discoverable object, but are hardly ever expected to do so by the reader. When one critic writes, 'The outstanding feature of [x]'s work is its living quality', while another writes 'The immediately striking thing about [x]'s work is its peculiar deadness,' the reader accepts this as a simple difference of opinion. If words like black and white were involved, [s/he] would see at once that language was being used in an improper way. > > Many political words are similarly abused. The word Fascism has now no meaning except in so far as it signifies 'something not desirable'. The words > democracy, socialism, freedom, patriotic, realistic, justice, > have each of them several different meanings which cannot be reconciled with one another. In the case of a word like democracy, not only is there no agreed definition, but the attempt to make one is resisted from all sides. It is almost universally felt that when we call a country democratic we are praising it: Consequently the defenders of every kind of regime claim that it is a democracy, and fear that they might have to stop using the word if it were tied down to any one meaning. > > Words of this kind are often used in a consciously dishonest way. That is, the [people who use them have their private definitions, but allow their hearers to think they] mean something quite different. > > Statements like > [x] was a true patriot, The [national] press is the freest in the world, The Catholic Church is opposed to persecution, > are almost always made with intent to deceive. Other words used in variable meanings, in most cases more or less dishonestly, are > class, totalitarian, science, progressive, reactionary, bourgeois, equality….